Courtney Love's Twitter Defamation Defense: 'Twitter Made Me Do It'
from the hmm... dept
It's been nearly two years since we first wrote about singer Courtney Love being sued for defamation over her Twitter messages mocking and attacking fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir. At the time, we noted that filing for defamation seemed like a pretty strong response, and it seemed like a better response would have been to either ignore the angry tweets, or to just lay out her own side of the story. However, after two years and apparently unsuccessful attempts at a settlement, the case is set to hit the court early next month, and it appears that some of Love's defense arguments will be interesting to watch.First up, her lawyers will argue that the messages weren't defamatory. Considering she called Simorangkir a "nasty, lying, hosebag thief" with "a history of dealing cocaine" while having "lost all custody of her child" and, being guilty of "assault and burglary," one could make an argument that those statements could be seen as defamatory, if it turns out that the factual allegations are untrue. Of course, you could also argue that most people reading them wouldn't, in fact, believe that they were true, and would read them as just Courtney Love being Courtney Love and attacking someone she didn't like.
More interesting, however, is that Love's lawyers will argue that even if the messages were defamatory, there was no damage done. Simorankir is going to argue that the tweets ruined her fashion career, but that seems like it would be quite difficult to prove. Would people really believe Love's tweets on the subject to the point that Simorankir's entire fashion career was ruined? Seems like a stretch.
The most interesting (and least likely to succeed) line of defense is a sort of "Twitter made me do it" defense:
Love's attorneys have their own witnesses, including a medical expert who plans to testify that even if Love's statements were untrue, her mental state was not "subjectively malicious" enough to justify the defamation lawsuit.If that argument flies, I'd imagine that becomes the default argument any time anyone gets sued for what they say on Twitter.
That claim -- something akin to an insanity defense for social media -- suggests that Twitter was so appealing and addictive for Love that she had no appreciation for how the comments she posted would be received by others.
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: courtney love, defamation
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
how does not being subjectively malicious enough equate to saying twitter made her do it? That seems like a leap to me, I would think this an argument that she maybe misunderstood twitter as a communications medium and thought anything she said wouldn't be taken too seriously or possibly that some of the true intention of her statements were lost in translation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I was basing it mainly on the second paragraph in the quote, noting how the argument was going to be about the "addictiveness" of Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Definitately Defamitory
What can be illegal is to make allegations of fact that *falsely* defame somebody. So the question isn't whether there was defamation, there was, the question is whether the defamation is actionable. Was it a claim of fact rather than opinion. And was it false.
The term "defamation" is sometimes used as a shorthand, but doing so can give people the wrong impression about the law and the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Definitately Defamitory
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"her mental state" - "akin to an insanity defense" - Really? That had to be mentioned? Thought it was common knowledge.
Silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If that argument flies, oh man... Then I can picture this:
"But, Your Honor, the offer from that torrent server was so appealing and the download seemed so easy and fast..." 8^)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When you talk about what Love said, why do you sugar coat it? "one could make an argument that those statements could be seen as defamatory"? No, those statements are definitely defamatory if they aren't true. Based on your description, it's hard to imagine how this could possibly not be libel (assuming the specific allegations Love made aren't actually true).
Libel law may be abused often, but it is fundamentally a good thing. There are very good reasons for it to exist. I don't understand why every time a libel case comes up, you bend over backwards to write it off as no big deal. It's a real crime that causes real damage.
Saying "filing for defamation seemed like a pretty strong response, and it seemed like a better response would have been to either ignore the angry tweets, or to just lay out her own side of the story" is ridiculous. When a defamatory claim is made, simply responding with "that's not true" turns it into a he-said/she-said scenario. Filing a court case lets the victim respond with "that has been proven in a court of law to not be true", which is much more effective, and also win damages to compensate them for the real damages caused by the libel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Slander and liable laws were clearly created so that harmful lies about the innocent wouldn't be spread and believed. But who in their right mind counts Courtney Love as a credible source on anything? And if nobody was ever going to believe her wouldn't it be more attempted slander/liable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
from Australia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You leave out the reality of the situation, which is this:
Doing nothing, or responding simply, means that the story disappears quickly and most people don't pay attention to it. Filing a lawsuit, means it gets a lot of attention and a lot more people hear about the original statements as well. Most of the people reading this would NEVER have heard about Love's statements at all. But now they have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Law
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: from Australia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(sorry...I couldn't resist)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Lots and lots of cold hard cash. Same thing that detaches politicians from reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I do. But she seriously needs to stay away from Twitter.. or learn to type on whatever she's tweeting on. I don't mind the insults as much as the letter salad.
Here's a classic Courtney feminism quote (from an interviewing journalist): 'She isn't in the mood, she says, before thrusting what look like a pair of child's shoes in my direction. What do I think of these? They're cute, I venture, a reaction that doesn't do much to endear me to her. "Cute?" she thunders. It transpires they are antique slippers used in the foot-binding process to which Chinese women were subjected: "I make art out of them. I put them under bell jars." I don't really know what to say back to her, a sensation that will become increasingly familiar.'
In the grand scheme of things, I think she's great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]