UPDATE: Second Re-Tweeter Pays Up in Lord McAlpine's U.K. Libel Case

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

British comic Alan Davies is the latest social mediaite to learn the cost of the dark side of retweeting; in this case, 15,000 pounds ($23,976), according to accounts in The Guardian and the iMediaEthics.org media watchdog Web site.

Davies's resolution with Lord McAlpine follows the settlement last month with retweeter Sally Bercow, the spouse of the U.K. House of Commons Speaker. As reported here (see "TUOL" post 11/26/12), the retired British pol Alistair McAlpine, 71, one-time Conservative Party treasurer and confidant of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, settled a libel suit for roughly a combined $500,000 with the BBC and ITV last November.

Steve Messham, who alleged he was molested as a child, purportedly identified his alleged abuser in a photo whom police incorrectly said was McAlpine. Messham later apologized for the misidentification, but the BBC Newsnight program reported an unnamed North Wales politician was accused of pedophilia and the Twittersphere soon was active with posts suggesting that McAlpine was the abuser.

Davies, whom The Guardian reported has more than 400,000 Twitter followers, last year queried who the "Tory paedophile" was and retweeted a response identifying McAlpine. He was sued for libel by McAlpine despite promptly apologizing on Twitter for his posts. Bercow's 56,000 Tweeter followers allegedly received a post from her asking: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*." McAlpine reportedly donated the settlement from Davies to the Royal Chelsea Hospital, according to The Guardian article.

The U.K. does not have the protection that likely would be accorded retweeters in the U.S. by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information contact provider."

Oregon Judge 'SLAPPs" Lawyer; Let's Out a Yelp

Image via CrunchBase

In Daniel Bernath v. Tabitha J. & Yelp, Inc. (Case No. 1305-06167), Multnomah County (Ore.) Circuit Court Judge Henry Kantor last week granted Internet Service Provider Yelp!'s Motion to Strike a defamation lawsuit brought by an attorney irate over a client's negative review of his legal services.

A Eugene, Oregon, resident identified as Tabitha J. was sued by Bernath after her negative Yelp! post. Judge Kantor, noting that the review involved a matter of public interest, ruled that Yelp! was shielded from liability both by Oregon's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute [ORS 31.150] and Sec. 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act.

Dentists, realtors and restaurateurs stung by negative Yelp! postings are among those who have sought recourse in court (See, e.g., "TUOL" posts 4/24/13 & 2/11/13), usually, unsuccessfully because of the CDA protection accorded ISPs in Sec. 230(c): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Tip of the hat to (blogericgoldman.org) Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Blog for following the case.

Fed Judge Grants Backpage.com Injunction Against Tenn. Sex Ads Law

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Judge John T. Nixon last week granted an injunction sought by classified ads Web site Backpage.com against a Tennessee statute aimed at online sex ads, The Tennessean's online edition (www.Tennessean.com) reported.

Backpage.com last June sued Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper and the Volunteer State's 31 district attorneys, alleging the law violated its First Amendment rights and ran afoul of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996 [47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1)], which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The Tennessee statute, which sought to curb sex trafficking of minors, imposes fines of at least $10,000 and subjects violators to a maximum 15 years in prison.

Backpage.com, which employs roughly 100 persons to track classified ad submissions, features an adult services section that boasts ads for strippers and escort services, among other adult-related ads. Craigslist.com stopped running adult classifieds in 2010, which has boosted Backpage's revenues.

According to The Tennessean article, Judge Nixon said the offending statute violated the First Amendment and interstate commerce laws. Backpage.com secured an injunction last July against a similarly worded statute passed by the State of Washington.

Libel Blowback Against U.K. Retweeters & Commenters

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New York Times yesterday reported that a retired British politician, who already has collected defamation judgments from the BBC and ITV for accounts wrongly linking him to child sexual abuse, has turned his attention in the plaintiff libel-friendly U.K. toward re-tweeters and others who commented about him on the social media site.

Seventy-year-old Alistair McAlpine, a former Conservative Party treasurer and confidante of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, recovered 185,000 pounds ($296,275) from the BBC after the broadcaster's Newsnight program wrongly linked him, though not directly by name, to alleged child abuse in North Wales. Twitter users were able to identify him based on the BBC story, which the broadcaster conceded was a case of mistaken identity by the accuser. The ITV television network settled McAlpine's libel suit against them for 125,000 pounds ($200,182), according to the Times article.

McAlpine, an author and one-time deputy chair of the Conservative Party (1979-83), is pursuing libel claims against 20 prominent individuals who tweeted about the false child abuse accusations, among them, a comic, a newspaper columnist and the spouse of a prominent politician, the Times reported. Additionally, McAlpine's attorneys have created a Web site that includes a form to complete for lower-profile Tweeters who purportedly defamed him. These tweeters, who have fewer than 500 followers, would be required to apologize, make a charitable donation and be subject to a small administrative fee for their alleged transgressions, which could amount to little more than innuendo or indirect reference to the child abuse allegations.

In the U.S., the tweeters likely would be protected from liability by 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which provides: "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Additionally, many states recognize the "wire service rule" as a defense against libel. Under that rule, espoused in cases such as Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32 (1985), one may avoid liability if one republished a news item from a reputable wire service, such as Associated Press or Reuters, without knowing the item was false or having any reason to doubt the truth of the item on its face, provided the republication does not substantially alter the news item.

Jordan Press Law Stifles Electronic Media

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Arab League co-founder Jordan has free press advocates on edge over an amendment to its Press and Publications Law that requires government licensure of electronic publications, the Daily Star reported this week.

The constitutional monarchy headed by King Abdullah authorizes the culture ministry to block unlicensed Web sites without having to secure a court order, according to Human Rights Watch. The new law presents a nebulous definition of electronic publication, but clearly articulates that Web site owners will be deemed responsible for content posted on their sites and that site users' comments will be subject to government-imposed restrictions.

The Star article cites an Associated Press estimate that roughly 400 Jordanian Web sites will be affected by the new law. In contrast, Section 230 (c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act in the U.S. shields Internet Service Providers from liability for content from third parties.  Jordan's Press and Publications Law already criminalizes defamation, encompassing governmental and religious entities, as well as people.

UPDATE: Fed Judge Enjoins Wash. Age-Verifying Law for Adult Ads

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Judge Ricardo Martinez this week issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") preventing a Washington law from taking effect that would require companies that accept online classified adult ads to verify the age of those offering "adult services."

Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire signed S.B. 6251 into law last March that subjects violators who don't check ID regarding adult ads to jail time of up to five years and a $10,000 fine (See "TUOL" post 4/3/12). The four-page TRO in Backpage.com, LLC v. Rob McKenna et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-00954-RSM) enjoins the measure, which was scheduled to take effect June 7, for two weeks pending further litigation. 

Village Voice Media-owned Backpage.com is challenging the constitutionality of the statute, claiming it violates both the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act of 1996 [47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1)], which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."  In its complaint, the plaintiff claims requiring providers, both in-state and out-of-state, to determine whether third-party posted content "is an ‘implicit’ ad for a commercial sex act in Washington, and whether it includes a depiction of a person, and, if so, ... maintain a record of the person’s ID...would bring the practice of hosting third-party content to a grinding halt.”

In granting the TRO,  Judge Martinez found: “Backpage.com has shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as well irreparable harm, the balance of equities tipping strongly in its favor, and injury to the public interest, justifying injunctive relief. “

Washington Law Targets Adult Classified Ad Purveyors

LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 30: Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire speaks during the National Clean Energy Summit 4.0 at the Aria Resort & Casino at CityCenter August 30, 2011 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Political and economic leaders are attending the summit to discuss a domestic policy agenda to advance alternative energy for the country's future. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)Gov. Christine Gregoire (D.-Wash.) last week signed into law a measure exposing to criminal sanctions classified ad companies that don't use ID to verify the age of people in online or print adult ads.

As reported by the Associated Press, Village Voice Media-owned Backpage.com, which accepts classified ads for a variety of adult services, is braced to challenge the new law's constitutionality. The law accepts as an affirmative defense good-faith efforts by the classified ad company to verify the age of the advertised individual in a sex escort or adult-related ad.

Backpage.com is expected to claim immunity based on the provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1) that states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Internet Defendants Dodge Liability in 'Sex Toy' Defamation Case

Image via Wikipedia

In Kanal V. Gaston v. Facebook, Inc., Maria Raquel Rivas et al. (Case No. 3:12-cv-0063), the United States District Court for the District of Oregon last week tossed defamation claims against Facebook, Google and Lexis-Nexis arising from the plaintiff's dispute against the mother of his child and his former employer that involves a missing sex toy.

Now that we have your attention, the litigious, unemployed, asset-free Gaston  filed multiple lawsuits principally targeting Rivas, a former coworker at Stamford Financial Group with whom he had a child, and the Harris County (Texas) District Attorney's Office, for whom he worked from 2007-2011. He alleged he was sexually harassed by the DA's office during an office party and that his ex-employer burglarized his vehicle and threatened him, all over his refusal to return a sex toy that is not further identified in the complaint.  Gaston further claimed that Rivas threatened to release a newspaper article and personal information about him that would depict him as "crazy and a trouble maker."

What does all this have to do with social media giant Facebook, A-list Internet search engine Google, and computer-assisted legal research maven Lexis-Nexis, readers may wonder? Well, Gaston alleges Facebook gave Rivas access to spread purported lies about him on the Internet, while Google and Lexis-Nexis purportedly conspired with Rivas and the DA's office to retaliate against him by publishing allegedly defamatory statements, that's what ("TUOL" isn't fooled, and knows readers haven't gotten past the missing sex toy to contemplate the legal ramifications of the case).

In mercifully allowing the Internet defendants out of the case, the district court cited Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") that shields Internet Service Providers from liability arising from content created by third parties. The court held that Google, Lexis-Nexis and Facebook are all Internet Service Providers, as defined  by CDA Sec.230(f)(2) as: "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions." 

The decision marks the first time Lexis-Nexis has benefited from the immunity offered by CDA Sec. 230(c), noted the always informative Eric Goldman Technology & Marketing Law Blog. It appears Gaston won't be tapping any social media deep pockets for dough (dill or otherwise).