defamation

by Jason Fischer

Okay.  So it's not really a news flash – it's kinda the bread and butter of the L.A. Times to print whiney panic pieces.  However, this story hit upon our sweet spot.  Reporter David G. Savage writes to warn us all about the dangers of criticizing others on teh interwebs.  The advice to bloggers and emailers: "think twice before sending a message."

With all due respect to the attorneys quoted in the piece, the story is a load of shit.  It paints the picture that you can and will be sued for posting anything negative about anyone or anything.  We understand that there is only so much space available for a story, but this one was so halfway done, that we question the article's intent.  Newspapers are losing their grip on the dissemination of information, as blogs and citizen journalists deliver information to the masses.  It almost seems like the L.A. Times was trying to scare us all from encroaching on their turf – and that it must have consciously failed to complete the story.

ShittyDentistThe article quotes our friend Professor Eric Goldman, of Santa Clara University, as saying that someone can be sued for saying "My dentist stinks."  Conveniently, this is the end of the quote – convenient because it supports the message behind the piece, i.e., don't be mean to people and hurt their feelings by writing unkind things about them.  We're sure that, if the entirety of Professor Goldman's input were published, he would have gone on to state, unequivocally, that "My dentist stinks" would never carry the day in court.  In fact, in California, bringing such a frivolous suit would leave the plaintiff paying everyone's attorneys' fees, after getting hit with a special motion to strike pursuant to the state's anti-SLAPP statute.  We've never seen Goldman shill for the "fraidy cat" contingent, and we bet our entire publication's credibility that he didn't do so this time.

Let's break it down LS style, in case someone out there is now afraid to complain about how much her dentist stinks on yelp after reading the article.  There are two ways the statement "My dentist stinks" can be interpreted:

The U.S. Senate passed a law that will make libel judgments from other countries void in the United States unless the judgment was won in a trial where First Amendment rights were taken into account. (source). Previous posts on this issue here, here, and here. It looks...

That's the holding of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, No. 08-1743, Op. at 13 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2010). The full opinion is available here.  The case, brought by a photographer against two shock jocks, involves a number...

A Kalamazoo, Michigan towing company is suing a Western Michigan University student for starting a Facebook Page against the company. The complaint is here. The quality of the work is exactly what you would expect from a lawyer who would file a claim like this. Go figure....

"Only verifiable statements of fact can be libelous." So sayeth New York Supreme Court Justice Alice Schlesinger in rejecting a defamation claim brought by Sandals resort against an anonymous critic. (source) Too bad that so many other judges are too stupid to understand this basic legal principle....

By J. DeVoy The trial court's opinion in Howell v. Enterprise was affirmed by Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court earlier this month, reaffirming the special protection journalists have when reporting on difficult cases.  The Media Law blog offered its analysis of the case and its significance when the decision was released: The opinion...

The plaintiff in this case belonged to a cult that has a practice of placing men on a "shun list" in order to convince them to give their wives a divorce. The cult's newspaper published the husband's name on its "shun list," but one of its newspaper reporters mixed...

A New Jersey plaintiff sued the local democratic party for circulating flyers that mentioned the opposing candidate's criminal record. The plaintiff was under the impression that the flyers were defamatory, because his record had been expunged. Firstamendmentpwned. "These flyers are, as a matter of law, not defamatory because the...