Musician Courtney Love is being sued for libel by a fashion designer for allegedly slamming the woman on Twitter.
The suit claims that after a disagreement over what Love should pay Dawn Simorangkir for the clothes she designed, Love posted allegedly derogatory and false comments about the designer. Love claimed that she had a "history of dealing cocaine" on her now-discontinued Twitter feed.
Celebrities are not the only victims of Twitter libel.Amanda Bonnen, an Illinois resident, is accused of using Twitter to tell another user: "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon Realty thinks it's okay."
Horizon Group Management LLC, the company that owned the apartment in question, sued Bonnen for libel over the alleged tweet. Horizon is seeking $50,000 in damages.
Legal experts say such Internet-related cases are being watched closely because they confront new and unaddressed areas of American law.
For example, how should a libel case be handled when it comes to social media? How can society balance accountability with free speech? And if information -- from private thoughts to public data -- is so readily available, how do we define what constitutes privacy?
Legal experts said it's difficult for the law to keep up with emerging technology.
There are several reasons why the law tends to play catch-up.
The first is that it's typically difficult to predict or anticipate technology innovations. For example, Napster.
Another challenge for the law is the way the Web crosses state and international borders. If a Facebook user in England sues another user in Australia for defamatory comments posted on the site. Who has jurisdiction over the case, which country's laws should be applied: England's, Australia's or those of the United States, where Facebook is based?
Also, what if one co-worker is offended by something another co-worker said. Do harassment laws apply? Does the company that employs some of the people have any liability?
Another example is of a user of Blogger.com who created "Skanks in NYC."
The blog attacked a Canadian-born model who has appeared in Vogue and other fashion magazines, by featuring photos of her captioned with derogatory terms.
The model sued Google, creator Blogger.com, to learn the name of the anonymous blogger on the grounds that the post was defamatory and libelous. A New York Supreme Court judge ordered Google to reveal the anonymous blogger's name, and Google complied.
Another case took place in 2006. Stacy Snyder was a 25-year-old single mother hoping to begin a career as a teacher. She had finished her coursework and was a student teacher. Yet Millersville University, located in Pennsylvania, wouldn't give her a degree.
Snyder filed a lawsuit alleging the school denied her a degree because administrators discovered a photo on her MySpace page that showed her wearing a pirate's hat and drinking from a plastic cup, with the caption "drunken pirate."
She lost her case, but, according to the decision by the court, the school provided alternative reasons for denying Snyder a degree.
4 comments:
I think how the law applies to the Internet and new technology is going to be a topic of discussion for the next few years. There are many different factors that come into play when dealing with legal issues on the Internet and the boundaries can be very blurry. It seems like it will be difficult to regulate issues on the Internet because no two situations are going to be the same. Each situation is going to have a different set of factors and it seems like each situation will have to be considered independently rather than having a standard "law" or "rule" that can regulate them all. We will have to wait and see what happens...
Hopefully legal issues would not be a barrier for the new media.
Law makers need to consider the fact that new - media specialists can relocate to overseas.
Can the country really afford more jobs outsourcing?
I agree with Jessi. These issues will be addressed in years to come.
It brings me back to good old Mass Comm Week speaker, Brian Cuban and his session on the Internet, Hate Speech and the First Amendment. He made it very clear that social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter receive NO FIRST AMENDMENT protection. But what does that mean for journalists who use the sites as another new outlet?
The Internet is like a world of it's own, evolving and accumulating a diverse group of people. I think it's up to the sites (the countries of this world) to hold people accountable for improper conduct according to their own "laws."
Easier said than done, right? Only time will tell how the Internet accepts laws.
This is an interesting discussion. Professor Martinez has also sparked the same focus in conversation. We reviewd a video where a renowned specialist on Copyright spoke about new media and walking the line between fair use and violation. I think it is an interesting discussion that continues to unfold.
Post a Comment