I was asked for comment today about defamation and Twitter and, in particular, whether the laws of defamation should apply differently in this new medium. Over the last year or so, there have been a number of cases involving defamation via Twitter, including a high profile situation involving Courtney Love earlier this year.
Despite thinking much about online defamation for my cyberlaw classes, my focus is usually on jurisdictional concerns and ISP liability. The questions that have come up time and time again are issues like:
(a) Is it fair for a plaintiff to sue a defendant in defamation at the place where information was downloaded which may be in a completely different jurisdiction to where the defendant uploaded it? Generally, the answer to this one has been "yes".
(b) To what extent should Internet middlemen (like ISPs and bulletin board operators) be liable for defamatory comments posted by their customers and members? Section 230 of the CDA generally immunizes them, subject to a few exceptions - see, for example, the Roommates.com case.
But I've not really (or at least recently) heard the argument that Internet forums are so different from traditional publication venues that they should be generally exempted from defamation law. Is there a viable argument that Twitter is more like a coffee house conversation than an online publication? If so, should this matter for a defamation analysis? And, if it does, where does one draw the line between Twitter, blogs, online social networks like Facebook and MySpace, and any other online forums (eg massive multi player online games)? Just food for thought as I prepare my notes for next semester's exciting instalment of cyberlaw classes...
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Freedom to Differ
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
International Law
: Freedom to DifferBe careful what you write on Facebook
The Mallesons IP Whiteboard blog has a post that should remind all of us to be careful with what we write on Facebook and other social media platforms:
Be careful what you write on Facebook! Adelaide teenager Christoper Cross has recently been convicted for criminal defamation after posting material about a local policeman on a Facebook site. Cross said that he ?didn't realise you could get in trouble for things on the internet ?. Pleading guilty in the Kadina Magistrates Court to criminal defamation, Cross became only the second person in South Australia ever convicted of the rarely used charge. He now has a criminal record and was sentenced to a 2 year good behaviour bond.
The message for Cross and any other users of social media is that although anyone can publish material on social media, the laws that apply to traditional media will still apply. Social media is published in real time and the posts are often permanent.
Read it here.
Meanwhile on The Faculty Lounge blog,
Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on December 01, 2009 (boomark / email).
Facebook / Blockbuster
alleging that Facebook distributed your Blockbuster movie rental information without your knowledge or consent.
Settlement Proposed in Class Action Against Facebook
Facebook will Close Beacon in Proposed Settlement
Facebook
Downloading Games Linked to Possible Identity Theft
Facebook
Wins $873 Million Settlement

Obama says to teens: "Be careful what you post on Facebook"
If In Litigation - Be Careful Of What You Have On Facebook
more reasons to be careful about Facebook postings
Are You Featured In Facebook Ads Opt Out Today!
Trademarks That FaceBook Owns Or Has Filed For Including The Following:









