Give me a C – D – A: Sixth Circuit Tosses Cheerleader’s Defamation Lawsuit

250px-Cincinnati_Bengals.svgUS-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-SealWe have been discussing the case of Sarah Jones, former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader who sued a gossip site,, after comments appeared from third parties that said that she had sex with half of the football team’s players and had contracted sexually transmitted diseases. (Strangely, the site did not argue that the statement was facially implausible and thus not defamatory since it did not appear in 2010 that anyone could catch anything from the Bengals). Jones, a high school teacher, won a rare $338,000 libel verdict against the site for third party postings. However, the United States for the Third Circuit has reversed the verdict and found that the site is protected under under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996.

The case is an important win for Internet sites that allow third party comments and postings. However, it must be a terrible disappointment for Jones who would be clearly defamed by these posters.

At the heart of the lawsuit is site, a pretty scummy website operated by Nik Lamas-Richie and DIRTY WORLD, LLC. It truly has no redeeming qualities and appears to the lowest common denominator of our society. It is a site that allows people to trash non-public figures and notably Richie selects and publishes material that he likes with his own comments. This makes it a more difficult case, including the fact that Richie actively seeks “dirt” from his “Dirty Army” — asking them to “Tell us what’s happening. Remember to tell us who, what, when, where, why.”

In 2009 and 2010, this juvenile site directed its attention on Jones who was a teacher at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, Kentucky, and a member of the Cincinnati BenGals, the cheerleading squad. On October 27, 2009, a third party submitted two photographs of Jones with a male companion. It read:

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, this is Sara J, Cincinnati Bengal Cheerleader. She’s been spotted around town lately with the infamous Shayne Graham. She has also 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!

Richie then added beneath the post: “Everyone in Cincinnati knows this kicker is a Sex Addict. It is no secret… he can’t even keep relationships because his Red Rocket has freckles that need to be touched constantly. – nik”

Jones asked for the post to be remove but Richie refused. Then on December 7, 2009, the poster submitted a photograph of Jones with the following:

THE DIRTY ARMY: 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. . whats worse is he brags about doing sarah in the gym. . football field. . her class room at the school she teaches at DIXIE Heights.

Again, Richie added remarks: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?- nik”

Finally, on December 9, 2009, a visitor submitted another photograph of Jones and a male companion and the following comment:

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, ok you all seen the past posting of the dirty Bengals cheerleader/teacher. . . well here is her main man Nate. Posted a few pics of the infected couple. Oh an for everyone saying sarah is so gorgeous check her out in these non photoshopped pics.

Then Richie added his juvenile commentary with “Cool tribal tat man. For a second yesterday I was jealous of those high school kids for having a cheerleader teacher, but not anymore. – nik”

Jones asked 27 times in emails for the postings to be removed and even her father wrote to Richie. They threatened legal action to no success. For teachers, this is a not just humiliating personally but teachers have been disciplined or fired over objections to their private lifestyle, a trend that I can criticized in prior columns. 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).

While I generally support the protection of free speech on the Internet, this is a troubling case given Richie’s active solicitation and his selection of “dirt” to trash average people. The district court had refused the immunity issue as well as efforts to an interlocutory appeal. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Jones for $38,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. However, the Third Circuit found that the CDA protected the Richie and his site.

Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides that “[n]o 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.” Notably, § 230(c)(1) does not explicitly mention immunity. However, courts have read such protection into the act. 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.”

The Sixth Circuit added in this case that:

an interactive computer service provider is not also the information content provider of the content at issue. An “information content provider” is defined 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(f)(3). A website operator can simultaneously act as both a service provider and a content provider. If a website displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content—and thus is immune from claims predicated on that content. But if a website operator is in part responsible for the creation or development of content, then it is an information content provider as to that content—and is not immune from claims predicated on it. Carafano v., Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Under the statutory scheme, an ‘interactive computer service’ qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an ‘information content provider’ for the portion of the statement or publication at issue.”). Thus, a website may be immune from liability for some of the third-party content it publishes but be subject to liability for the content that it is responsible for as a creator or developer. See Roommates, 521 F.3d at 1162−63, 1165; see also Batzel, 333 F. 3d at 1033. In short, immunity under the CDA depends on the pedigree of the content at issue.

What follows in the opinion is an excellent discussion of the notions of contributions and different tests among the circuits. The court then rules that this case does not qualify as an exception:

of the website,, suggest that only illegal or actionable content will be published. Unlike in Accusearch, Richie or Dirty World did not compensate users for the submission of unlawful content. Cf. Accusearch, 570 F.3d at 1200−01. The website’s content submission form simply instructs users to “[t]ell us what’s happening. Remember to tell us who, what, when, where, why.” The form additionally provides labels by which to categorize the submission. These tools, neutral (both in orientation and design) as to what third parties submit, do not constitute a material contribution to any defamatory speech that is uploaded. See Nemet, 591 F.3d at 256 (finding that the “structure and design of [defendant’s] website” and the website’s “solicit[ion of] its customers’ complaints [and] steer[ing] them into specific categor[ies]” did not constitute development under § 230(f)(3)” (fifth alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Roommates, 521 F.3d at 1173−74 (holding that § 230 barred the fair housing councils’ claims grounded on the discriminatory statements displayed through Roommate’s operation of the “additional comments” section of its website).

Further, Richie’s comment on the December 7 post—viz., “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?”—although absurd, did not materially contribute to the defamatory content of the statements uploaded on October 27 and December 7, 2009. Richie’s remark was made after each of the defamatory postings had already been displayed. It would break the concepts of responsibility and material contribution to hold Richie responsible for the defamatory content of speech because he later commented on that speech. Although ludicrous, Richie’s remarks did not materially contribute to the defamatory content of the posts appearing on the website. More importantly, the CDA bars claims lodged against website operators for their editorial functions, such as the posting of comments concerning third-party posts, so long as those comments are not themselves actionable. See Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330; see also 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).

To be sure, Richie was an information content provider as to his comment on the December 7 post. But Jones did not allege that Richie’s comments were defamatory. And the district court did not hold that Richie’s comments were themselves tortious. Rather, the court No. 13-5946 Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, et al. Page 24 concluded that those comments “effectively ratified and adopted the defamatory third-party post” and thereby developed the defamatory statements, thus ruling that the CDA did not bar Jones’s claims. Jones IV, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 823 (“Defendants are mistaken, for the salient point about Richie’s tagline is not that it was defamatory itself and thus outside CDA immunity, but rather that it effectively ratified and adopted the defamatory third-party post.”). The district court’s adoption or ratification test, however, is inconsistent with the material contribution standard of “development” and, if established, would undermine the CDA. Therefore, Dirty World and Richie did not develop the statements forming the basis of Jones’s tort claims and accordingly are not information content providers as to them.

Now Richie’s counsel says that he is considering adding insult to injury by actually suing Jones to force her to pay his costs in the lawsuit. I would not be too concerned about such a lawsuit since this was a reserved question in the circuit and the outcome was far from clear. However, it does complete the image of Richie in making such a threat.

While many would disagree with its conclusions, it is a well-written and well-researched decision that is worth a read.

Here is the opinion.

18 thoughts on “Give me a C – D – A: Sixth Circuit Tosses Cheerleader’s Defamation Lawsuit”

  1. I agree with the decision 100% It was the only proper legal one they could arrive at. Now it’s time to change the law.

  2. imo had he not responded to the post by adding his own nasty comments to the post then he wouldnt be liable imo but once he crossed that line then it no longer was a third party post but a post written by a third party and expounded on by the owner of said site and that alone should have been ale to hold him responsible. i dont see how its possible to claim you have no responsibility for what is written by others. when you reply to the posts with even more libel and slander. but then again we’re talking about todays society.. richie sounds like a jealous queen who is upset that he was born richie instead of regina..


    1. shakingmyhead – I do not agree with the decision and I do not see how the court twisted itself into a knot to get there, but they did. Hopefully they well ask for an en banc.

  3. Saucy, Kraaken is one of the more common sense folks here. He is @ the lower end of hyperbolic commenting. We do have some REAL embellishers, Kraaken isn’t on that list.

  4. TheSaucyMugwump: ” That was a moronic decision, not simply because it offended Jews — though it certainly did ”

    Pray, tell how it was moronic. As has been said here many times, there is no Right in the Constitution that protects one from being ‘offended’.

    TheSaucyMugwump: “but because the original Nazis espoused a philosophy of killing all sorts of people

    Not unlike our militarized police forces today.

    Part of the questionable ‘charm’ of the Internet is that people can speak their mind free of concern that there will be reprisal for that speech. Some sites, even though they are nasty and sleazy (TheDirty, Drudge, Fox News, to name a few), allow that sort of a forum and unpalatable as it might be, it is free speech. There are other sites that sometimes go too far in the other direction (WordPress seems to like eating responses quite a bit.). However you slice it, this format is probably the last true bastion of First Amendment rights. One might not agree with what is said but rational people can disagree rationally.
    If this cheerleader has a problem with what was said, there are civil remedies available. Just because the sleazeball that owns the website has decided to pander to the lowest form of speech doesn’t mean he should be liable for what others post in the same way the good professor should bear no responsibility for some of the posts that appear here.

  5. What do you expect from the 6th Circuit. The most political of any circuit courts.

  6. Nick wrote “Nazi’s being allowed to march in Skokie was a real tough one.”

    That was a moronic decision, not simply because it offended Jews — though it certainly did — but because the original Nazis espoused a philosophy of killing all sorts of people — handicapped, dark-skinned, Jews, Slavs, etc. — and using others for slave labor. Would we allow a parade of convicted child molesters and murderers? I hope not.

    Imagine the next wave of the Internet in which content is communicated in real-time via Glass, so cheerleaders can be slimed all over the city at one stroke. Do we still hold that we are dealing with free speech issues or do we finally realize that once we took the step to automate defamation, free speech needed a re-think?

  7. Unless I missed it, was she unable to sue the actual poster because of anonymity? Because it sounds like his post went beyond Free Speech opinion and into libel. But it’s the poster, not Ritchie, who wrote it.

    Drudge did the right thing, but not Ritchie, who appears to be a slime ball. He may not have been legally liable for 3rd party comments, but his actions were unethical.

  8. X is standing on a soapbox yelling that your johnson is only 1″ long, you have every conceivable STD, you beat your children and wife, and you are a thief. You righteously file suit for slander. You learn that Y actually owns the soapbox, but you successfully argue that he is a partner with X. You prevail over both men.

    Then another man rents a large storefront in the middle of town. The sign on the entrance states that he will allow strangers to post large signs containing any text, no restrictions, for free. The entrance also states that advertisements will be allowed for a fee. X places a sign in the window containing all of the things he said on the soapbox. You file suit and argue that the man could easily remove (or not allow in) offensive signs.

    Then another man creates a website containing ads to pay him a generous salary. He allows anything to be written about any subject. X and many other people write nasty things regarding you and your family. You file suit only to be told that the Internet is different.

    So it’s only a matter of scale? So we give people a pass if they create a situation which cannot be easily maintained?

  9. Since the Cincinnitti Bengals players have an action here and certainly more more, maybe a class-action against Richie. Drudge was man enough to correct his error immediately, which is more than the NYT does. Richie just ruins your life.
    I think they have made cases for going after the original posters in cases like these and with enough money it could be a tasty little suit.

  10. BarkinDog – I think I would check I own wikisite if I were you.

  11. I wonder if Karl Rove, who is a “public person” will sue the various blogs which repeat the wikipedia story that he had sex with a dog back when he was in high school. Karl Rove is kinda like a cheerleader for the Bengels. He was a cheerleader for Bush and a lot of other lying cheats but that is neigher here not there when you are talking about him being defamed for having sex with a dog. A male dog at that. Which is why he is for gay marriage.

  12. I agree this is a well researched decision. Some law clerk worked their butt off. This is a real tough one. Nazi’s being allowed to march in Skokie was a real tough one. The tough ones are what make the First Amendment the core of our Constitution. Correct decision, may Richie rot in hell, my same wish for the Nazi’s.

  13. “Strangely, the site did not argue that the statement was facially implausible and thus not defamatory since it did not appear in 2010 that anyone could catch anything from the Bengals”


  14. Keep it simple.

    Sue the one who posted, not the blog or website provider.

    Otherwise, it can look like a money grab.

    I notice that the plaintiff Jones did not sue the person or persons who posted the bad stuff (the “provider”), she only sued the site.

Comments are closed.