love vs Gordon & Holmes: Courtney Love and U.S.’s first Twitter libel trial
What is Twibel? :
Simply put, Twitter plus libel equals Twibel. Libel is the written form of defamation, where a false published statement harms the reputation of another.Twitter has made posting potentially defamatory content much easier. Coupled with the continued increase in Twitter use, it was only a matter of time before Twibel libel would enter the courtroom for legal interpretation.
Simply put, Twitter plus libel equals Twibel. Libel is the written form of defamation, where a false published statement harms the reputation of another.Twitter has made posting potentially defamatory content much easier. Coupled with the continued increase in Twitter use, it was only a matter of time before Twibel libel would enter the courtroom for legal interpretation.
Love hired Holmes' firm
in late 2008 to pursue claims that attorneys and accountants had allegedly
stolen money and other personal property from Cobain's estate, court records
show.
But she later dropped the firm, partly out of dissatisfaction with its stipulation that she refrain from "abusing any and all substances for at least the remaining duration of their attorney-client relationship," according to the subsequent libel complaint filed by Holmes.
Love later tried unsuccessfully to rehire the firm, the complaint alleged. In June 2010, she responded to a question from another Twitter user by tweeting: "i was (expletive) devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off ..."
Although the case was one of the first in which Twitter and libel law intersected, Lawrence said it was tried by the same rules as traditional defamation cases.Jurors decided that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.
Holmes' attorney, Mitchell Langberg, said the jury's verdict meant the panel determined Love's statement was defamatory, but the singer couldn't be held liable for it. Holmes' side asked the panel to award $8 million in damages and send a message that false statements online had consequences.
But she later dropped the firm, partly out of dissatisfaction with its stipulation that she refrain from "abusing any and all substances for at least the remaining duration of their attorney-client relationship," according to the subsequent libel complaint filed by Holmes.
Love later tried unsuccessfully to rehire the firm, the complaint alleged. In June 2010, she responded to a question from another Twitter user by tweeting: "i was (expletive) devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off ..."
Although the case was one of the first in which Twitter and libel law intersected, Lawrence said it was tried by the same rules as traditional defamation cases.Jurors decided that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.
Holmes' attorney, Mitchell Langberg, said the jury's verdict meant the panel determined Love's statement was defamatory, but the singer couldn't be held liable for it. Holmes' side asked the panel to award $8 million in damages and send a message that false statements online had consequences.
The case makes me simply
ask what do the remedies for defamation look like in the age of Twitter?
How can we best encourage free speech while deterring defamatory speech on
Twitter?
as well as If a goal of defamation is to
strike a balance between freedom of expression and preserve the reputation of
people, especially in the social media space, is the lengthy (and usually
expensive) litigation the most effective path to achieve this result? If a
tweet is considered to be defamatory, how are damages assessed?
for more info on the case: http://www.insureon.com/blog/post/2014/01/23/twitter-libel.aspx
I don't think the issue of Twitter libel is really solved here, even though Courtney Love apparently won this round.
ReplyDelete