Re: 2/28/01 - [GTMI] The Recorder/Law.com: Free Speech Win for Chat Room Rants; Court says message board users can trash companies
Free Speech Win for Chat Room Rants
Court says message board users can trash companies
Brenda Sandburg
The Recorder
February 28, 2001
Clarifying what constitutes free speech on Internet message boards, a California federal court ruled that individuals cannot be sued for posting disparaging statements about a public company if the statements are opinion rather than fact.
On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a suit that telecommunications company Global Telemedia International Inc. (GTMI) filed against several individuals who posted negative, and allegedly libelous, comments about the company on an Internet bulletin board. GTMI claimed the individuals had engaged in defamatory commercial speech that had caused economic damage to the company.
But Judge David Carter concluded that "defendants and plaintiffs are not competitors and the chat-rooms do not constitute a business context." Further, he said the distinction between fact and opinion does not apply solely to media defendants as GTMI contended.
"If the statements are opinion rather than fact, they are not actionable," Carter wrote.
Megan Gray, a partner with Baker & Hostetler who represented one of the defendants, said this is the first case in which a court has looked at all the postings on a message board rather than individual statements to determine if defamation has occurred.
Gray previously represented an individual who criticized his employer anonymously on a Yahoo message board. The individual filed suit against Yahoo for disclosing identifying information to his employer without warning him. That case settled out of court.
"I hope this [ruling] will put a legitimate damper on abuse of the judicial system," Gray said. She said frivolous lawsuits have been filed solely to obtain subpoena power "to uncover the identity of someone who posted on the Internet anonymously."
GTMI's attorney, Curtis Chen of Garden Grove, Calif., could not be reached for comment.
The court also found that California's anti-SLAPP statute applies in this case. The statute allows defendants to seek dismissal of a suit if the alleged bad acts arose from the exercise of free speech "in connection with a public issue" and the plaintiff cannot show probability of succeeding on the claims.
However, Carter suggested parameters for when it may be appropriate to file a defamation case involving Internet postings.
"This holding does not foreclose defamation cases involving two competitors," he wrote. "Nor does it necessarily foreclose defamation cases against individuals, as not all businesses will be found to be a 'public issue.' Further, even where a business is found to be of public concern, where there is a probability of success, the claim may proceed."
In Global Telemedia Int'l, Inc. v. Does, (Case No. 00-1155 DOC), the court ruled that even if the defendants' postings were actionable statements of fact, and not opinion, the plaintiffs must show damages as a result of the postings. GTMI had failed to do so, Carter wrote, noting that the company's stock had dropped prior to the negative postings.
The Constitution and the Internet. Free Program. February 26-March 2. store.law.com
law.com |
