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).

Federal Court Tosses Teen Prostitute Suit Against Village Voice & Backpage,com

Image via WikipediaCiting a federal statute that protects Internet service providers from lawsuits concerning content posted on their sites, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Thomas C. Mummert III this week dismissed a lawsuit against Village Voice Media Holdings LLC and Backpage.com brought by a teen-aged prostitute who claimed the defendants knowingly permitted her pimp to advertise her sexual services on their Website.

According to accounts in St. Louis Today and by the Associated Press, the lawsuit sought at least $150,000 in damages against Backpage.com, which accepts adult services ads, for allegedly providing a "safe house" for customers and procurers to arrange child prostitution. The plaintiff in the suit was not identified, but claimed she became a prostitute at age 14. Her 27-year-old pimp last December received a five-year sentence after pleading guilty to using interstate commerce to promote prostitution, according to press accounts.

In dismissing the case, Judge Mummert ruled: "Congress has declared such websites to be immune to suits arising from such injuries. It is for Congress to change the policy that gave rise to such immunity." Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that "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 September 2010, a joint letter was sent to Backpage.com by attorneys general from 21 states urging the site to stop running adult services ads, which the Website declined to do. (See "TUOL" post 9/23/10.)

Google to Appeal Italian Court Criminal Conviction

Image via Wikipedia

California-based Internet search giant Google, Inc., will appeal the criminal convictions for invasion of privacy of three of its top executives in an Italian Court this week, according to American Lawyer.

Google CFO George Reyes, Senior Vice President David Drummond and Chief Privacy Officer Peter Fleischer were sentenced to six months in prison for violating Italy's privacy laws concerning a 2006 video posted on now-defunct Google Video depicting students taunting and throwing an object at a Down Syndrome youth, which resulted in four students being expelled from their Turin school. The Google executives, who were acquitted of defamation charges, are not facing jail time because short prison sentences for first-time offenders are commuted under Italian court rules.

The Google officers could not be prosecuted under U.S. law for the charges against them in Italy principally because 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."

Fourth Circuit Says Consumer Web site Entitled to CDA Immunity

Image via Wikipedia

The Web site ConsumerAffairs.com is immune from claims of defamation and interference with advantageous business relations for 20 postings concerning a class-action suit against an auto dealer under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ["CDA",47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1)], according to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In Nemet Chevrolet Ltd. & Thomas Nemet d/b/a Nemet Motors v. ConsumerAffairs.com, Inc. (Case No. 08-2097), the 4th Circuit said the Web site was an "interactive computer service," not an "information content provider," and thus, was entitled to protection under Sec. 230(c)(1), 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." 

The plaintiffs argued that the structure and design of the Web site and the Web site's participation in preparing 20 consumer complaints at issue exempted the defendant from CDA immunity. The appellate court, in upholding U.S. District Court Judge for the E.D. of Virginia Gerald Lee's allowance of defendant's motion to dismiss, said the plaintiffs' allegations were conclusory and failed to intimate ConsumerAffairs.com contributed to the allegedly fraudulent nature of the 20 comments at issue.

Give Me a V, Give Me a D...

Image by Erik Eckel via Flickr

A Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader has sued Thedirty.com Web site for defamation in U.S. District Court in Kentucky, alleging that the site suggested she had contracted venereal disease from her randy former boy friend.

The suit (Jane Doe v. Dirty World Entertainment, Hooman Karamian d/b/a Nik Richie) is based on a Dec. 7, 2009, posting entitled "The Dirty Bengals Cheerleader," that identifies the plaintiff as "Sarah J." and notes she is a both a cheerleader and a school teacher in Northern Kentucky. The post claims the plaintiff's former beau cheated on her with 50 women and contracted chlamydia and gonorrhea, which was likely passed onto the plaintiff. More than 100 comments followed the posting, both supportive and vulgar.

The plaintiff said the venereal disease allegations are false and caused her extreme embarrassment, though she continues to work as both a cheerleader and teacher. The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based defendant's Web site includes a disclaimer that acknowledges postings may contain erroneous information and states that the site does not vouch for the accuracy of its contents.

Falsely accusing an individual of having a "loathsome disease" is textbook libel per se. However, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 [47 U.S.C. sec.230(c)] holds: "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," which may shield the defendant from liability.

Craigslist Not a Pimp; Federal Judge Tosses Sheriff's Suit

Image via Wikipedia

A federal court has sided with Craigslist, the online classified advertising colossus, by dismissing a lawsuit brought by Cook County (Ill.) Sheriff Thomas Dart that accused the forum of promoting prostitution in its erotic services listings.

Judge John F. Grady of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relied on a provision of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, better known as the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C., sec. 230(c)(1)) in ruling for the defendant in Thomas Dart, Sheriff, v. Craigslist, Inc. (Case No. 09-C-1385).  Specifically, Section 230(c)(1) states that "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."

Sheriff Dart alleged many of the ads appearing in the erotic services section use code words that in fact involve payment for sexual services. Craigslist expressly warns users that soliciting prostitution is prohibited and has begun charging posters of erotic services ads.

Congress enacted Section 230(c)(1) to encourage Internet Service Providers to police themselves by shielding them from liability for content they did not create. Without such a provision, online speech could be chilled.