Re: 2/26/01 - [GTMI/GLTI] Court Protects Anonymous Statements on Internet Message Board; Judge Heralds Message Boards as Vibrant Places for the Exchange of Opinions
For Immediate Release: Contact: Megan E. Gray, (213) 975-1763
February 26, 2001
Court Protects Anonymous Statements
on Internet Message Board
Judge Heralds Message Boards as Vibrant Places for the Exchange of Opinions
LOS ANGELES, CA -- A federal court in California has dismissed a lawsuit against individuals posting on an internet message board, finding that the individuals were exercising their rights under the First Amendment's freedom of speech.
Global Telemedia International, Inc. ("GTMI", now trading as "GLTI")' sued several anonymous John Does for negative posts on a Raging Bull message board. GTMI claimed that certain posts had crossed the line into defamation and interference with economic prospects. Defendants argued that the suit was brought against them as a "transparent effort to intimidate and silence individuals who are critical of GTMI's corporate performance."
These disfavored lawsuits are commonly referred to as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation or SLAPP lawsuits. Under California law, a defendant can move to dismiss the lawsuit if the alleged bad acts arose from his exercise of free speech in connection with a public issue and if the plaintiff cannot show a probability of success on the merits.
In the first ruling of its kind, the court held that internet message boards devoted to discussions about a publicly traded company are indeed "in connection with a public issue" and are fully protected under anti-SLAPP provisions. The eleven-page ruling is also the first time a court has held, as a general matter, that internet message boards will almost always consist of protected opinions, which cannot constitute defamation.
As a result of this determination, the court held that GTMI could not show a probability of success on the merits of its case, and dismissed the lawsuit. The attorneys for one of the defendants, Megan Gray and Brian Ross of Baker & Hostetler LLP, are extremely pleased with the court's adoption of their arguments. Gray stated, "Many judges around the country are facing frivolous litigation filed primarily to silence internet critics. As a result of Judge Carter's decision, which sets forth a thorough analysis of constitutional rights in this arena, these other judges will now have a guidepost in similar cases." Gray characterized the decision as a tremendous victory for free speech on the internet, and predicted that it is likely to be especially influential.
In opposing the anti-SLAPP motion, GTMI argued that the posters engaged in commercial speech about a company that is not of "public interest" (as required under the SLAPP statute). The court stated that GTMI's argument was unsupported by the law or the facts of this case. The court held that "GTMI is a public traded company with many thousands of investors. GTMI itself has inserted itself into the public arena and made itself a matter of public interest by numerous press releases. Further, a publicly traded company is of public interest because its successes or failures will affect not only individual investors, but in the case of large companies, potentially market sectors or the markets as a whole… The fact that a message board has generated tens of thousands of messages further indicates that the company is of public interest."
After determining that posts were concerning a matter of public interest, the court turned to its consideration of whether GTMI would likely prevail on the merits of its case. In this regard, the court determined that the statements at issue were protected opinion under the "totality of the circumstances" test -- the court examined the statements in their broad context, which includes the general tenor and format of the entire message board. In addition, the court considered the figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the message board audience.
The court determined that internet message boards are, as a general matter, forums for the expression of opinion, not fact. " The statements were posted anonymously in the general cacophony of an internet chat-room which posts around 1,000 messages a week on GTMI…They were part of an on-going, free-wheeling and highly animated exchange about GTMI and its turbulent history. Importantly, the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases…the posts are written with a great deal of linguistic informality." Turning to the specific posts, the court held that "reasonable readers would not take these posts to be anything more than a disappointed investor who is making sarcastic cracks about the company. The reasonable reader, looking at the hundreds and thousands of postings about the company from a wide variety of posters, would not expect that the defendant was airing anything other than his personal views of the company and its prospects."
The court went even further, however, stating that, even if the posts were actionable statements of fact, and not opinion, GTMI must show damages as a result of the postings, and that it would be practically impossible to make any such showing. Although GTMI's price has been steadily declining for some time following the posts, GTMI cannot show any causation between the two events.
The court also flatly rejected GTMI's request to postpone a decision on the anti-SLAPP motion until GTMI had an opportunity to conduct discovery on the defendant posters. "Having…further found that the postings are opinions rather than actionable facts [and this is] dispositive of Plaintiffs' claims, no further discovery is necessary."
Under the anti-SLAPP statute, GTMI is now required to pay the attorneys' fees incurred by the posters in defending against this meritless lawsuit.
###
Megan Gray and Brian Ross are attorneys with Baker & Hostetler in Los Angeles. They represent many clients in connection with internet issues, online privacy, anonymous speech, and related issues. With approximately 400 attorneys, Baker & Hostetler LLP is among the nation's top law firms. With lawyers practicing in virtually all areas of law, Baker & Hostetler also has a significant technology, First Amendment, and intellectual property practice. The Firm has offices in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Houston, Orlando, and Washington. More information about Baker & Hostetler can be found at www.bakerlaw.com.
Taken from: newsop.net
=====
For more information on Megan E. Gray see:
bakerlaw.com
For more information on Brian A. Ross see:
bakerlaw.com |
