To Tweet or not to Tweet – legal aspects of Twitter, at www.ZeekBeek.com
Twitter, LinkedIn, google+, Facebook, Instagram-- these social networking tools have transformed our personal interactions and opened up new avenues of communication. Recently these mediums have also raised interesting legal issues as the law attempts to integrate these new technologies into existing legal frameworks.
Consider twitter-- right now the Courtney Love so- called "Twibel" (Twitter/libel) case is making it's way to a jury in a California. Courtney Love, no stranger to controversial behavior, sent a tweet in 2010 about her ex-lawyer that said:
@noozjunkie I was f---ing devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off at @fairnewsspears perhaps you can get a quote
The tweet was apparently sent after Holmes declined to pursue a fraud case against the managers of the estate of Kurt Cobain (Love's former husband). Rhonda Holmes thought the tweet suggested she had been paid off to abandon the lawsuit -- so she sued Love, claiming that the tweet amounted to libel. You can read more background about the case here. http://www.businessinsider.com/courtney-love-tweets-in-libel-trial-2014-1. Incredibly, this wasn't even the first time Courtney Love was sued over a tweet! In 2011 Love paid $430,000 to settle a twitter libel case brought against her by a clothing designer.
But this case is getting a lot of attention because it is the first twitter libel case to go to a jury. So is it libel? Well, the technical answer is that it's up to the jury to decide. Libel generally means a public written statement that impugns a person's reputation causing harm. If the statement is about a public figure, like an entertainer or politician, then it's not libel unless the statement was made with actual malice. But if the statement is made about a private person, then it can be libelous if it was made with negligent disregard of the truth. Accusing someone of a crime or professional incompetence is a common example of libel. But there are some defenses, including that a statement is substantially true even if it isn't 100% accurate, and a statement of opinion where the underlying facts are true. By the way, defamation is sometimes used interchangeably with libel, but if the statement is in writing, then it is libel -- so that's why this is Twibel, not Twefamation!
The legal rules described are the basic rules that have always applied to libel. So does Twitter really change anything? It seems that the main problem with Twitter and libel is that many people tweet impulsively and as a result "publish" a defamatory statement, whereas in the past they might have just ranted a bit to friends or even to themselves, with no legal consequences. Do existing legal rules provide a helpful function by discouraging false and disparaging tweets? Or do they unfairly penalize people for comments that were meant to be momentary expressions of thoughts and feelings?
Twitter has also caused problems for the less famous. Recently a judge ruled that a gate attendant could sue a passenger who tweeted derogatory information that specifically named the gate attendant. A man in California saw charges against him upgraded from manslaughter to murder based on tweets about fast driving that he posted prior to a car accident that claimed the life of a cyclist. And in a Hawaii a man tweeted himself into a 90 day jail sentence by criticizing the judge and police on twitter while his judicial proceedings were still ongoing. These cases also show that Twitter can have significant real life consequences because of the way it memorializes and broadcasts information, reinforcing the need to think before you tweet!
Disclaimer – Blog Not Legal Advice
This blog is not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed. The information and materials on this blog are provided for general informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. The law changes frequently and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Being general in nature the information and materials provided may not apply to any specific circumstances. Nothing on this blog is intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal advice, please consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
Twitter, LinkedIn, google+, Facebook, Instagram-- these social networking tools have transformed our personal interactions and opened up new avenues of communication. Recently these mediums have also raised interesting legal issues as the law attempts to integrate these new technologies into existing legal frameworks.
Consider twitter-- right now the Courtney Love so- called "Twibel" (Twitter/libel) case is making it's way to a jury in a California. Courtney Love, no stranger to controversial behavior, sent a tweet in 2010 about her ex-lawyer that said:
@noozjunkie I was f---ing devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off at @fairnewsspears perhaps you can get a quote
The tweet was apparently sent after Holmes declined to pursue a fraud case against the managers of the estate of Kurt Cobain (Love's former husband). Rhonda Holmes thought the tweet suggested she had been paid off to abandon the lawsuit -- so she sued Love, claiming that the tweet amounted to libel. You can read more background about the case here. http://www.businessinsider.com/courtney-love-tweets-in-libel-trial-2014-1. Incredibly, this wasn't even the first time Courtney Love was sued over a tweet! In 2011 Love paid $430,000 to settle a twitter libel case brought against her by a clothing designer.
But this case is getting a lot of attention because it is the first twitter libel case to go to a jury. So is it libel? Well, the technical answer is that it's up to the jury to decide. Libel generally means a public written statement that impugns a person's reputation causing harm. If the statement is about a public figure, like an entertainer or politician, then it's not libel unless the statement was made with actual malice. But if the statement is made about a private person, then it can be libelous if it was made with negligent disregard of the truth. Accusing someone of a crime or professional incompetence is a common example of libel. But there are some defenses, including that a statement is substantially true even if it isn't 100% accurate, and a statement of opinion where the underlying facts are true. By the way, defamation is sometimes used interchangeably with libel, but if the statement is in writing, then it is libel -- so that's why this is Twibel, not Twefamation!
The legal rules described are the basic rules that have always applied to libel. So does Twitter really change anything? It seems that the main problem with Twitter and libel is that many people tweet impulsively and as a result "publish" a defamatory statement, whereas in the past they might have just ranted a bit to friends or even to themselves, with no legal consequences. Do existing legal rules provide a helpful function by discouraging false and disparaging tweets? Or do they unfairly penalize people for comments that were meant to be momentary expressions of thoughts and feelings?
Twitter has also caused problems for the less famous. Recently a judge ruled that a gate attendant could sue a passenger who tweeted derogatory information that specifically named the gate attendant. A man in California saw charges against him upgraded from manslaughter to murder based on tweets about fast driving that he posted prior to a car accident that claimed the life of a cyclist. And in a Hawaii a man tweeted himself into a 90 day jail sentence by criticizing the judge and police on twitter while his judicial proceedings were still ongoing. These cases also show that Twitter can have significant real life consequences because of the way it memorializes and broadcasts information, reinforcing the need to think before you tweet!
Disclaimer – Blog Not Legal Advice
This blog is not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed. The information and materials on this blog are provided for general informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. The law changes frequently and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Being general in nature the information and materials provided may not apply to any specific circumstances. Nothing on this blog is intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal advice, please consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
