Having just signed up for Twitter, I was very recently contemplating the implications of defamation laws on Twitter users, and the potential for seemingly limitless liability. Then, in one of those odd moments of serendipity, a friend pointed me towards a breaking story outlining a Chicago apartment management company suing a former tenant for defamation via Twitter.
Original reports simply stated that Horizon Group Management LLC filed a lawsuit on Tuesday (28th of July ‘09) claiming Amanda Bonnen of Chicago defamed the company in a May message on Twitter.
The company has subsequently issued a press release (pdf) giving some context to the dispute: It appears that the same Amanda Bonnen who posted the comment “You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.” Is the first named plaintiff in a class-action law suit taken against the company. The Tweet, according to Horizon, was discovered as part of their due diligence (read: dirt-digging) process for defending the claims.
At any rate, however the dispute arose, and however it is resolved, it raises some interesting issues. The underlying premise of Twitter is the instant worldwide publication of information. Arguably, users are publishing statements in whatever country they are accessible from, and may find themselves falling foul of their own local laws & the laws of other countries.
In New Zealand, there are essentially three requirements for a claim in defamation: 1) there must be publication of a statement, 2) this statement must be capable of a defamatory meaning, and 3) the defamed party must be identifiable. While there are various defences available (such as the defence of truth, or the defence of honest opinion) they can be hard to prove.
While the US laws on defamation are not identical to those in NZ, judging by the documents filed by Horizon (pdf), they are undoubtedly similar. In essence, if you say something which might be harmful to another’s reputation, you better have some solid evidence to back this up, or it better clearly be an honestly held opinion, not an assertation of fact.
As I’m sure Amanda Bonnen would agree, it can be all too easy to slip into a level of complacency; especially where the likes of Twitter and Facebook become a large part of ones life. Privacy matters aside, when your profile is set to public, everything you say is potentially accessible in every jurisdiction in the world. Where you make public statements about those who trade on their reputation, do not be surprised if those comments reach the object of your scorn or gossip. Especially if you’ve just sued them…
![[Post to Twitter]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Plurk]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-plurk.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Yahoo Buzz]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-buzz.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Delicious]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-delicious.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Facebook]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-fb.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Ping.fm]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-ping.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Reddit]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-reddit.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://businessblogs.co.nz/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su.png){kind=icon}
The disappointing aspect is that Twitter, Facebook etc are all about free communication and speaking your mind. I can understand a case where someone goes all out to destroy a reputation with repeated malicious comments in a multitude of high profile situations. But I’m seriously suprised you can’t express an impulse opinion as the woman in the example above has. Very sad, especially as it could well be true.
Bella
I was very surprised when I first saw the article too, hence the blog… In NZ, defamation cases are relatively rare. In the US, there’s the 1st amendment which strongly weighs in favor of free speech. I think had this situation not been in the context of a pre-existing dispute, it wouldn’t have been pounced on by the Company in question. I mean, look at all the negative press they received!
At any rate, they’ve attracted *much* more negative attention than succeeding at trial could ever counteract (in my humble opinion).
All the same, it would pay for all social media users with public profiles to be aware of the basics of defamation laws…
I had a very bad customer experience this morning and was thinking about tweeting it out, but because of it’s scope and scale I decide not to.
Got…to…stop…impulse…tweeting
This blog is being discussed on PropertyTalk.com. Being an online discussion site users often link to articles about people and businesses and then we get the call to remove the posts.
Each case is handled based on the call (there can not be one rule for all). It’s an interesting topic – one where it is unknown what the general ruling is – for website publishers posting users comments and links to other sites containing potentially defaming material.
cheers,
Donna
Hi Donna, thanks for the comment.
I’ve gathered from feedback that there’s a need for clarification on our media laws as relate to social media. Watch this space…
FYI, this guy’s one of the countries authorities on the subject, with a plain English guide to defamation.
http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273
Cheers,
Stephen
It’s about time we looked into the common law root of justice and get past fear of lawyers, statutes, and corporate law, which is after all an artifice designed to protect… you guessed it the corporates.