There is an important case pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on liability over Internet speech for blogs and websites. The court heard arguments in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment, where gossip blog, The Dirty, is appealing the decision of U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman that the site is liable of defamatory statements by third parties and cannot claim immunity under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. The site was sued by Sarah Jones, an ex-Bengals cheerleader and a former high school teacher in northern Kentucky, who was libeled on the site by commentators.
Defendant Dirty World, LLC operates “the dirty.com” which invites comments by third parties to dish on others. Defendant Hooman Karamian, a/k/a Nik Richie (“Richie”) would then respond to such gossip in the discussion section. Jones, who was teaching at Dixie Heights High School at the time, was shocked to find a posting from October 27, 2009, by a visitor to “the dirty.com”:
Nik, this is Sara J, Cincinnati Bengal[sic] Cheerleader. She’s been spotted around town lately with the infamous Shayne Graham. She also has slept with every other Bengal Football player. This girl is a teacher too! You would think with Graham’s paycheck he could attract something a little easier on the eyes Nik!
Notably, we have previously discussed the worrisome trend of teachers and other public employees being disciplined or fired over conduct or statements in their private lives. We have previously seen teachers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), students (here, here and here) and other public employees ( here, here, here, here, here, here and here) fired for their private speech or conduct, including school employees fired for posing in magazines (here), appearing on television shows in bikinis (here), or having a prior career in the adult entertainment industry (here).
So, Jones had reason to fear that these comments would cause her harm — though I continue to oppose this trend of discipline for teacher as discussed in this column. (Notably, the defendants conceded the defamatory content of the postings and later did not challenge the amount of the award).
Jones contacted the site to ask that the comment be taken down but the site refused. Then on December 7, 2009, another post was made to “the dirty.com:”
Nik, here we have Sarah J, captain cheerleader of the playoff bound cinci bengals.. Most ppl see Sarah has [sic] a gorgeous cheerleader AND highschool teacher. . yes she’s also a teacher . . but what most of you don’t know is . . Her ex Nate . . cheated on her with over 50 girls in 4 yrs. . in that time he tested positive for Chlamydia Infection and Gonorrhea . . so im sure Sarah also has both . . what’ss worse is he brags about doing sarah in the gym . . football field . . her class room at the school where she teaches at DIXIE Heights.
(SAC ¶¶9-13). In response, Richie posted: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack? – nik.” (SAC ¶ 14).
Jones repeated her demand for the comments to be taken down and again the site refused. Instead, Richie posted: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack? – nik.” Again, she asked for the comments to be taken down and again they refused.
The jury hung in the first trial of this case, which necessitated a second trial. The evidence in both trials regarding the claimed immunity was essentially the same as that described in the Court’s earlier opinion. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for $38,000.00 compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages.
The key to the decision is the CDA. Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The statute defines “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(3).
Bertelsman rejected the argument that it barred recovery in the case. The district court drew a distinction between third party postings or comments that appear without solicitation or encouragement and this type of site that actively seeks such comments. The court noted a number of decisions limiting CDA immunity including a decision by Judge Easterbrook of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who wrote in Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. For Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2008), that the CDA does not provide “a grant of comprehensive immunity from civil liability for content provided by a third party.” Easterbrook ruled that Craigslist was entitled to protection but noted that “[n]othing in the service craigslist offers induces anyone to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination.” Id. at 671-72.
The distinction would have huge implications for gossip sites or trash talking sites. The district court held that
“Although Courts have stated generally that CDA immunity is broad, the weight of the authority teaches that such immunity may be lost. That is, a website owner who intentionally encourages illegal or actionable third-party postings to which he adds his own comments ratifying or adopting the posts becomes a “creator” or “developer” of that content and is not entitled to immunity.”
However, it is not clear where the line will be drawn. The district court stressed:
The cases cited by defendants are entirely distinguishable because none involve facts where a website contributed to the development of actionable content by adding its own comments implicitly adopting an offensive posting and encouraging similar posts.
The question is what happens to sites that generate such comments but the host or staff do not repeat or specifically comments on the postings. We have previously discussed the opinion in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330-31 (4th Cir. 1997) where Chief Judge Wilkinson wrote for the Fourth Circuit:
By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions — such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content — are barred.
The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. The imposition of tort liability on service providers for the communications of others represented, for Congress, simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech. Section 230 was enacted, in part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum.
* * *
None of this means, of course, that the original culpable party who posts defamatory messages would escape accountability. While Congress acted to keep government regulation of the Internet to a minimum, it also found it to be the policy of the United States “to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.” Id. § 230(b)(5). Congress made a policy choice, however, not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties’ potentially injurious messages.
Past CDA decision have been sweeping in the extent of the immunity, even from reluctant judges as in Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998). In that case, the Drudge Report was sued by Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal who are citizens of the District of Columbia and have continuously lived in the District since 1985. Complaint PP 1-2, 12. Sidney Blumenthal worked in the White House as an Assistant to the President of the United States and the defamatory materials was published the day before he began work at the White House on August 11, 1997. The article was entitled “Charge: New White House Recruit Sidney Blumenthal Has Spousal Abuse Past.” It was untrue and, after receiving a letter from their counsel, Drudge retracted the story through a special edition of the Drudge Report on his web site and e-mailed to his subscribers. Drudge also e-mailed the retraction to AOL which posted it on the AOL service. He also later publicly apologized to the Blumenthals. AOL however was protected even though the site actively monitors postings and reserves the right to remove postings. Judge Freidman wrote:
If it were writing on a clean slate, this Court would agree with plaintiffs. AOL has certain editorial rights with respect to the content provided by Drudge and disseminated by AOL, including the right to require changes in content and to remove it; and it has affirmatively promoted Drudge as a new source of unverified instant gossip on AOL. Yet it takes no responsibility for any damage he may cause. AOL is not a passive conduit like the telephone company, a common carrier with no control and therefore no responsibility for what is said over the telephone wires. 11 Because it has the right to exercise editorial control over those with whom it contracts and whose words it disseminates, it would seem only fair to hold AOL to the liability standards applied to a publisher or, at least, like a book store owner or library, to the liability standards applied to a distributor. 12 But Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others. In some sort of tacit quid pro quo arrangement with the service provider community, Congress has conferred immunity from tort liability as an incentive to Internet service providers to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material, even where the self-policing is unsuccessful or not even attempted.
Richie’s lawyers are arguing that liability in this case would chill speech on the Internet. Indeed, David Gingras is quoted as saying “If Judge Bertelsman’s ruling stands, the Internet will have a nuclear meltdown.”
This is going to be an important decision for both communications and tort law that we will continue to follow.
Here is the original district court decision:
20 thoughts on “Sixth Circuit Hears Argument On Blog Liability For Defamatory Comments Over Ex-Bengals Cheerleader”
wait a minute, i just can’t wrap my head around this
the Cincinnati Bengals have cheerleaders?
I think that we should not quote exactly what the defendant in the lawsuit said about this Cheerleader. Because if we do, then she can say that we are just as bad as the defendant. If we were to post photos of her in the cheerleader outfit and say that she has a nice rear then she could not say that she was defamed. If we said her rear was not all that it was cracked up to be, it would be a judgment call. If she was not a cheerleader then maybe her rear would be off base so to speak to begin with. If we said that she was mean as a tiger she could not complain because she wears a Bengal as in tiger. Now we could not go much further on the lions, tigers and bears thing. One problem with the blog defendant is their very name. They employ the name dirt. They open the door to this sort of litigation. But I don’t like the litigation in that it opens the door to all sorts of censorship. It someone says that I don’t remember itShay then I just let it pass. Perhaps the courts should view this as a dropped pass and send this Bengal on her way without a judgment. Judge not, least ye be judges. So sayeth the Lord. And if I am wrong on that one don’t sue me. As that famous musician said: Anything but Sue!
It is sometimes frustrating when the will to never concede can sometimes result in bad case law precident.
I do not know how much of this happens on the civil side but I have seen it on the criminal. I have seen on numerous occasions where a county prosecutor should have just let the defendant walk but instead fought it all the way to the courts of appeals or the state supreme court and lost creating some more legal issues for us to deal with because of the behavior of some LEO that couldn’t do things right. And, it then forces everyone has to deal with the problem.
Did anyone bad mouth Don Sterling? Yeah, things could get interesting.
It is getting Chilly in here.
“…. So blog on that for awhile.”
That sort of thought struck me on reading the post.
The content being complained of is replicated (in part at least) in this post.
A logic goes that any site that replicates the content – in the knowledge that the complainant has an objection – should be liable for damages.
The post could have been presented without actually quoting the content being complained of.
There is a question here – even if the subject were to notify the good Prof and he then edited it out.
Leaving that aside, and staying with Dirty World Entertainment and the question of “chilling free speech”….. any chilling would only arise from mind-blowing insanity in the court system. The insanity would arise from wilful refusal to differentiate between cases and the blind application of some extremely general rule.
The purpose of the content in this case seems to be to smear the good name of Jones. There does not seem to be any ‘public good’ motivation. A just system should be able to chill the perps (including the Dirty) and not chill some ‘speech’ that while uncomforable for some still serves a public good.
A can not see any sign that the ‘speech’ in question is political or religious for example.
There is a catch however…
Justice is terminally dumb.
Take this case that I noticed recently..
With that sort of court system, I suppose there could very well be a chilling effect if some low-lifes got smacked.
The answer should be to fix the terminally stupid system that can give life with no parole to someone who only premeditated going to bed.
Any reasonable person should see that Dirty should get smacked. It’s a poor system that can not do something about that without damaging more worthy speech.
Not necessarily so Paul….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIR_USE_Act see section V
The interesting part here could be that if Prof. Turley blogs and then someone here goes bonkers and defames a known person, that person would have standing to sue. This could get interesting.
Al – good luck on your new/old occupation and hobby.
Travels through Dementia.
I escaped from the old folks home in NC, gathered my resources, made it back to Vegas and am back in my old job at Motel 6 (Sex). I am keeping my blog name although I do not have alzheimers. I get room, board, and some walking around money for cleaning the guest rooms 20 hours a week. Slot Machine Sal picked me up at the airport and gave me a free ride. If ya know what I mean, jelly bean. So all is well. I cannot tell ya the real name of the place. But it is legal and its near Vegas and near a casino. Got my medical file and lo and behold they flunked me on the senility test because I said Christ was born on Christmas Day instead of December 25th and I said that All Saints Day was a football celebration in New Orleans. Asked me if I knew where my money stash was buried in the yard and I said I had forgot. Thought I was lying or nuts when I said that I got laid ten times a week. Good thing I lied on that one question about the money because the stash was still there and the kid didn’t get it. Well, gotta get back to work cleaning rooms and sticking to my ten times a week on the paid in trade sort of thing.
If the first Amendment does not trump on this thing then blogs will have to go off shore.
The plaintiffs in the suit are stating that they will sue Westlaw if the Court of Appeals prints any excerpts of the liable statements in their opinion and then Westlaw publishes the opinion. So blog on that for awhile.
If they were asked to take it down and they didn’t. Then maybe they have some liability.
If successful, what is to stop the formation of Online Word Police to churn out cases for lawyers with nothing better to do? $338,000 in settlement money will draw them out.
“Nothing better” as the wrong people keep getting arrested.
I think that the Internet would survive quite nicely thank you.
The particular content in this case could do with some chilling.
The French Revolutionaries got the balance between rights and responsibilities:
This is not a case of a site owner being sued over some abusive 3rd-party content that they could not control once they became aware of it.
The site owners
1) refused to take the content down
2) added to the message with a comment supportive of the content.
(1) should be enough for them to have a measure of liability
(2) should definitely make them liable
If the particular content were something that they felt was of importance to society, the siteowners have a choice:
Stand over it or take it down.
Presumably they would make inquires as to the accuracy of the content before deciding to stand over it.
If the content was important, e.g. calling attention to some great wrong, then if it were taken down there would be a Streisand Effect. The original content would be picked up and spread around increasing numbers of sites.
If someone believed that this teacher posed a danger to students, they could bring the evidence to the school authorities.
The best rule of thumb when posting: Keep it polite, thoughtful, and informative.
I can’t understand why they did not take the stuff down when multiple requests were made.
The Dirty Laundry song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SzT10MSgKtU
I’d take boring over interesting – any day.
It sucks having the diametric what everyone wants to see;
but no one wants to hear about
I reckon there is some personal interest in this case as well, being a blogger as well as a professor. Interesting case. My wife was just summoned to the Federal Courthouse where she worked for 25 years. I looked @ the cases on the docket and there’s nothing juicy like this. Most civil cases are boring dog asses, the interesting ones make up for it.
Free speech isn’t free;
if its not true.
Comments are closed.