Zoeller Sues to Find Author of Web Post – washingtonpost.com
This may be the first Internet defamation case of a public figure in what I have been calling the application of media law to the public. Here, a defamatory allegation of drug and family abuse was added to the Wikipedia entry of golfer Fuzzy Zoeller. As a public figure, he’d have to meet the high standard of “actual malice:”
- Are the allegations true? (who knows)
- Are they defamatory? (probably yes in this case)
- Were they published? (While technically anyone on the Internet could have read the Wikipedia article, there is a remote chance that this question could turn on how many people accessed the article while the defamatory words were posted. If they were deleted by the first person to load the page, there is a possibility it might not be considered “published.”)
- Was Zoller identified? (clearly)
- Finally, was it published with “wreckless disregard for the truth?”
This last part is the tricky one. Under the standard of actual malice, reporters and publishers will usually attempt to show that the defamatory words were published after a good-faith effort to verify their truth. However, without the usual forms of editorial review that preceed conventional publication, it might not be so easy to maintain this legal standard. Even if there have been public figure defamation cases involving anonymous speech (I’m not aware of any), there likely has always been a reviewing publisher who could act as the target of the suit.
As media law becomes applied to the publishing public, can these legal rules built under the assumptions of traditional publishing be maintained?
The question at the end of your post is a good one and will become increasingly important as more non-professionals, many of whom will have no knowledge or understanding of libel law, begin publishing online. On the one hand, it seems unfair that they should be held to the same standards as, say, a professional journalist working at a major daily newspaper. However, it also wouldn’t seem fair if the words of a kid blogging defamatory content on their myspace page, for example, was able to simply get away with harming someone’s reputation just because they didn’t know the law. And, anyway, that myspace profile may very well get more traffic than some articles on a mainstream newspaper’s website.
Another issue is who’s laws should apply. The UK, where I live, has libel laws that many feel are tipped too far in favour of the claimant. And now there are lawyers taking on such cases on a “no win, no fees” basis. To sue for libel in a UK court, one only need to show that it was published to someone in the UK – which, given the nature of the internet, a wikipedia entry or any other article is likely to meet.
Cameron Diaz recently sued the National Enquirer, based in the US, in a UK court. See http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/160207/libel_apology_and_damages_for_cameron_diaz
If you’re interested in a primary UK perspective on internet libel, you might find these posts of use: http://www.cybersoc.com/internet_libel/index.html
Enjoyed your post.
Robin.
Interesting arguments.
Under UK law he could sue because there is defamation, identification and publication.
It’s then down to the website/author (and the ISP if they don’t take it down when notified, you could probably class Wiki as the ISP here) to prove what is said is true and not the other way round.
So Robin’s point is really interesting.
Robert Mugabe keeps talking about extraditing UK journalists about what they’ve said about him when his staff have checked the sites.
A colleague who teaches law to journalists says you could go on a libel holiday and just get people to open sites in countries around the world.
Hmm, a business venture coming on here.
Thanks John, interesting points and Robin’s too!
Indiedog
anarchic in the UK
Simply want to say your article is striking. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with incoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the a uthentic work