Week 8

False, Misleading and Illegally-Obtained Information

    Week Ending: 03/13/2010

    Required Reading

    Please note that while I provide links for the following cases, you may also retrieve them with header notes via Westlaw.

    N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

    Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,485 U.S. 46 (1988)

    Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)

    Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)


    Assigned Audio-Video

    Lecture - Part I

    Lecture - Part II - This segment is taken from Seattle University School on Law's symposium on the First Amendment. You may find you need to download RealPlayer to access this lecture. You can download a free copy of it here.

     

    Recommended Materials

    Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,418 U.S. 323 (1974)

    Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)

    Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997),[1] cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)

    Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Weighs in on Todd Hollis Lawsuit against DontDateHimGirl.com

    The EFF's amicus brief in support of dontdatehimgirl.com. From the EFF's:

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged a Pennsylvania court today to dismiss defamation claims against the controversial website DontDateHimGirl.com, arguing that federal law shields the website from liability to protect the free flow of information online.

    DontDateHimGirl.com was created by Tasha Joseph as a forum for women to share information about men. One of the men discussed on the site, Todd J. Hollis, claims that some participants posted defamatory statements about him on the website. In its amicus brief filed today, EFF argues that DontDateHimGirl.com’s owner cannot be held liable for comments written by others under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 specifically protects hosts of interactive computer services from liability to encourage free discourse and robust debate.

    You can read the brief by the EFF here.

     

    More Internet Libel (The Gathering Legal Superstorm Against Bloggers)
    Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award astonishing.”

    Astonishing indeed - and not in a good way.

     

    Myers v. Levy and The Fact/Opinion Dichotomy In Defamation Cases

    Recent cases in Illinois (see above) provide notable opinions concerning Anti-SLAPP and similar motions (a.k.a. special motions to strike under CCCP Sec. 425.16) and like provisions.

    They provide useful discussions of just what constitutes a public issue for purposes of the law. Thankfully, the California court categorically rejected a federal district court's erroneous holding that statements by a commercial competitor about the competition are not matters of public interest. That court also recycles an important passage concerning the fact/opinion dichotomy in defamation law. False factual assertions are actionable under defamation principles, but opinions are protected under California (and most other) laws.

    The key question: How do you truly distinguish between an assertion of fact versus an opinion?

     

     

    PowerPoint Presentation created by John Rothchild, esq. of Wayne State Law School for his Privacy and Technology class on privacy and the media.

     

    Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8