When Suing A Website For Libel, It Helps To Actually Sue The Right One
from the thedirt-vs.-thedirty dept
Last week, a story caught my eye, about a website being ordered to pay $11 million for failing to respond to a lawsuit claiming libel. The story caught my attention for a few reasons: first, I'm always interested in libel lawsuits involving blogs and second... the name of the site that was sued was TheDirt.com, which... er... seemed close enough to Techdirt.com that I had to pause for a second and make sure it wasn't us. Anyway, after all that, it didn't seem like the ruling was interesting enough for a post... until some other details came out.The lawsuit itself came from a Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader/high school English teacher named Sarah Jones, who was upset that the site in question apparently posted a picture of her and reported that she had an affair with a player and had contracted two venereal diseases. Assuming there's no truth to the rumors, it sounded like a straightforward libel case -- though from all the reporting, it's not clear if the site owners themselves wrote the content, or if it was written by a user -- in which case the site might have Section 230 protections (potentially depending on how involved they were in encouraging such content).
So why is the case suddenly interesting? Well, perhaps because it now appears that Ms. Jones' lawyers sued the wrong company. Oops. The lawsuit was filed against Los Angeles-based Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, which runs the website TheDirt.com. Problem is that the site that contained the content in question was TheDirty.com, and that's run by a Scottsdale-based company called Dirty World LLC who had no indication that there was a lawsuit going on at all. Oops indeed. At least no one sued us.
Amusingly, the folks at TheDirt.com are amusingly asking if they should sue for libel right back, considering all the press coverage claiming (falsely) that they had libeled Ms. Jones. Oh, and as for TheDirty.com, it's also asking the AP for an apology for falsely reporting that it had lost the lawsuit when it hadn't even been served. Quite a dirty mess. Separately, I have to imagine that Jones' lawyer, Eric Deters, now regrets his statement to the AP:
"If they would have just taken it down, this all would have been over," Deters said. "They just kind of mocked the whole court system."Might have helped if you sued the right company.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, libel, mistakes, sarah jones, thedirt.com, thedirty.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're just as bad as the lawyer. That's not the same Sarah Jones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*poof* Real Journalism written by Real Journalists, with all the rights and immunities assigned thereto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheap Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money back guarantee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money back guarantee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
Sorry, sorry, I couldn't help myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheap Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why
The problem here is one company was Los Angeles, California based and the other was Scottsdale, Arizona based. It's a matter of jurisdiction as well.
Not only is her attorney an idiot, but he placed himself vulnerable to a malpractice suit by her. This attorney broke the first rule of being a jurist, always double-check your paperwork, as there is no such thing as a typo under the law. One typo can ruin a case.
As to the Associated Press' incompetence. This isn't the first time the AP has not checked its facts (or lack thereof) before reporting a story. A simple followup would have prevented their story from ever being published as it was, but it would not have made for good tabloid press; you know instead of that yucky "journalistic integrity" thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insults
So, a dirty, rotten, mean, vermin bastard piece of dirt SOB? I guess when you screw the pooch as badly as this lawyer did, hurling insults at the other guy is a good way to draw attention away from your royal fuckup.
Also: 0
Boy. It takes a lawyer to know how to [kind of] slander somebody without actually being guilty of slander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Deters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, $11 mil b/c someone said something mean about you online? That's outrageous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some of those later URLs are websensed... For SEX!
Boy, howdy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why yes, yes they did
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Court Favoritism in Femerica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typical Court Favoritism in Femerica
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine how this is going to unwound without the law admitting to itself that it was an ASS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THEDIRT.COM has been registered since 2002, protected by GoDaddy’s “Domain by Proxy” service that hides true owner information. This is the same service Hooman Karamian utilizes in his solutions. An IT records check (with registrar GoDaddy or hosting provider MOJO) would ultimately provide evidence or possibly link ownership of the domains.
Reference:
Address lookup
canonical name thedirt.com.
addresses 99.192.184.230
Domain Whois record
Domain Name: THEDIRT.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 29-may-2010
Creation Date: 09-apr-2002
Expiration Date: 09-apr-2011
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
CustName: Mojohost
Address: 31800 Northwestern Hwy
Address: Suite304
City: Farmington Hills
StateProv: MI
PostalCode: 48334
Country: US
V/r
Nate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leveling the playing field
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to sue a website
I don't know how to ask but the issue is I have visiting a website where I found some guy selling the T-shirts with the pics of our goddess. The pictures were vulgar and kind of porn views. I don't knoe how to SUE this GUY PLEASE HELP.
I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA BUT I'LL DEFINITELY STOP THIS VIOLATION.
IF SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS PLEASE HELPPPPPPPP....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to sue a website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Web Privacy Buys You Nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]