Judge Changes Mind, Says James Woods Can Likely Unmask Guy Who Made Fun Of Him On Twitter
from the clownboy dept
Last summer, we noted a crazy case in which the famous Hollywood actor James Woods sued a random Twitter troll who had been making fun of Woods. The anonymous troll, who went by the name Abe List, mocked some of Woods' own nonsensical tweets about Caitlyn Jenner and Planned Parenthood by saying:"@RealJamesWoods @benshapiro cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting."As the lawsuit noted, Abe List had also mocked Woods in the past, such as calling him a "clown-boy." Of course "clown-boy" is not something than a statement of fact and thus can't be defamation. The real issue is whether or not saying "cocaine addict James Woods" is a statement of fact that is defamatory. Of course, considering that Woods is a public figure, this seemed like a really high bar to cross. With a public figure, the statements need to be made "with actual malice" or a "reckless disregard for the truth." In other words, it needs to be a case where Abe List knew those things weren't true, but said them anyway. That seems unlikely here. Oh yeah, and also, hyperbolic statements that are obviously hyperbole are not considered defamation, and this one seemed to qualify.
-- Abe List (@abelist) July 15, 2015
On top of all that, once Abe List got some lawyers (including Ken "Popehat" White), they pointed out that Woods himself had a rather long history of making similarly hyperbolic statements about people on Twitter. In fact, nearly identical ones:
Abe List made an anti-SLAPP claim in California, which should stop all discovery and hopefully get the case tossed -- and things seemed to be going his way. Back in November, Woods' lawyers tried to move forward in discovering Abe List's identity but the judge rejected that plan.
Then, earlier this month, there was a hearing, and LA Superior Court judge Mel Recana, appeared to side with Abe List, issuing a 10-page tentative ruling dismissing the case. In that tentative ruling, Judge Recana noted:
The court finds that as a matter of law, in consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the tweet at issue is not a statement of fact but rather "rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous epithets, lusty and imaginative expressions of contempt and language used in a loose figurative sense" that does not support a defamation action.... The tweet cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about James Woods. Both tweets were in the context of expressing inflammatory opinions. There was no indicia of reliability as to defendant's tweets.That was February 2nd. So, you can imagine basically everyone's surprise, when less than a week later, Judge Recana released a 1-page final order that says the exact opposite:
As contended by plaintiff: Applying the totality of circumstances test, and examining the plain language of the Tweet, it is clear that any reader of the AL False Statement could and indeed must view it as a statement of fact. As described by Professor Finegan, AL's use of a prenomial characterization (i.e., "cocaine addict") followed by a proper noun (i.e., "James Woods") is a well-established linguistic structure widely used to characterize people with shorthand factual information. Prof. Finegan's opinion that "many if not all readers of the 'cocaine addict' Tweet will understand and interpret Abe List to be making a factual claim about James Woods -- namely that he is a cocaine addict' is on an issue of fact. His opinion is sufficiently beyond common experience and assists the trier of fact.It's hard to underscore how surprising and ridiculous this ruling is. Yes, putting a descriptive term in front of a name can be viewed as a factual statement, but the law requires you to put them into context, and here the judge is completely ignoring that, and bizarrely claiming that people literally "must view it as a statement of fact" even though basically no one would do so. It's also bizarre given the original tentative ruling that a judge would so completely flip positions within a matter of days.
One of Abe List's lawyers, Lisa Bloom, has put out a statement saying that they will be appealing this ruling:
On Twitter, Mr. Woods enjoys calling strangers "clown," "rat," "scum," and other epithets. Mr. Woods insults gay Americans and immigrants. he brags that he could murder a man whose shirt offends him. He claims a prominent publisher "whacks off" to a picture of a terrorist. When Twitter users challenge him, he tells them to "put down your crack pipe." He's mockingly accused at least three other Twitter users of using crack cociane.The statement also notes that Abe List filed some sort of "formal complaint" with Twitter, though the details there are not entirely clear. Either way, what should have been a simple case with a simple dismissal has now gotten a lot more complicated. It may be tempting to mock the judge, but be careful what you say, because apparently he believes that obvious hyperbole must be interpreted as fact if you put the statement in front of someone's name.
Mr. Woods dishes it out, but he can't take it. When not-famous, not-wealthy John Doe responded to a James Woods slur on Caitlyn Jenner and Planned Parenthood in kind, calling him a cocaine addict, Mr. Woods sued. Mr. Doe's suggestion that Mr. Woods was on drugs was not meant to be taken literally, just as Mr. Woods' "put down your crack pipe" and other mocking language was not serious. This is his simple defense.
Twitter is a wide open forum where wisecracks are the norm. It exists not only for the rich and powerful to lambast others, but for all users to express themselves, often colorfully, without fear of being dragged into expensive, stressful litigation. It is frightening to be sued for $10 million by Mr. Woods, but Mr. Doe is fighting back.
Today the Court rejected our request to dismiss the case. We strongly disagree with the denial of the motion, and agree with the Court's tentative ruling that granted the motion. We look forward to presenting the issues to the Court of appeal. Mr. Doe is resolved to fight this case for as many months or years as it takes.
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: abe list, anonymity, clown-boy, clownboy, cocaine addict, defamation, free speech, hyperbole, james woods, mel recana, social media
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cocaine addicted defending judge says he can't define hyperbole and sarcasm, but he'll know it when he sees it... completely misses the boat in recent Twitter case. Continues to adjudicate law poorly since his head appears to be stuck up his derrier.
/s (in case he can't tell)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While trying to undo this courts bizarre finding the door will be open for lots of people to sue Mr Woods for lots of money. Most of his statements seem to be made with malice, so he can reap what his thin skin helped create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, I can't understand that kind of thin-skinned troll. He has no problem insulting and "making statements of fact" that he expects everyone else to take as hyperbole, but can't tolerate that one guy does the same to him. Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'I should be able to do/say X but you aren't allowed to' is standard hypocrite behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anyone who fails to accept their narrative as gospel can look forward to being absolutely excoriated, often in the most amusing, self-contradictory ways.
Point and laugh, then move on.
As TAC correctly pointed out, if Woods wins he will quickly find out that the rules do indeed apply to him. The opportunities for schadenfreude are legion. Bring it, Mr. Woods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It just makes you a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Sign of the Times
Who's country do we live in?
Obviously the US population is the chattel of the 1% who feed off their productivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I wanna know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I wanna know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can others sue Woods?
It seems like someone as mouthy as Woods would not want anything close to that being possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can others sue Woods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can others sue Woods?
/poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...
Both statements imply that the other is doing illegal narcotics so how is there not a counter suit here?
Maybe that guy needs to sue Mr "cocaine addict James Woods" and get some for himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asking for a friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does that mean his next potential employer *must* see those tweets about him as true and can refuse to hire him on those grounds? That's how the judges decision reads to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put another way, if a newspaper wrote "James Woods was sniffing drugs again last night while posting on twitter", they would be quickly printing a retraction and their lawyers doing their best to avoid getting sued into next week.
Why should twitter or any other digital publishing medium have a different standard for such comments? Because the interwebs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winning the battle but losing the war
"@RealJamesWoods @benshapiro cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting."
And this not defamatory:
@stevmg Well, put down your crack pipe, and retread my timelines. You'll find plenty there.
Both are implying that the other is using drugs, the only difference is the wording.
When Woods calls someone a 'rat', is that a statement of fact that the other person is indeed a rodent? When he calls someone 'scum', is that a statement of fact as well?
The funny thing is, as TAG has pointed out several times, if Woods 'wins' here given his past posting history he's opening himself up to a world of trouble as he has a history of replying abrasively to anyone critical of him(as this lawsuit demonstrates abundantly), and while he got away with it before as simple hyperbole and 'statements of opinion' a 'win' here could change that.
Now when he tells people to 'put down the crack pipe' he's not just saying that their thinking is messed up, he's making a statement of fact that they are a drug user, and that opens him up to claims of defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Winning the battle but losing the war
Woe betide the fucker who dares to film a policeman, but if the same policeman shoots a baby, it's perfectly acceptable because getting a warrant or exercising restraint is too, too hard for the poor men in blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Winning the battle but losing the war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline should read,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Headline should read,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is James Woods a candy addict?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is James Woods a candy addict?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]