How Dan Snyder's 'Libel' Suit Against Unflattering Article Demonstrates Need For Federal Anti-SLAPP Law

from the libel-me-this dept

In February, we wrote about how Washington Redskins (er, we mean Washington Professional Football Team Who Shall Not Be Named) owner Dan Snyder had such a thin skin that he had sued a local newspaper, the Washington City Paper, claiming libel over a silly satirical story that mocked Snyder.

Not only did it draw a lot more attention to the claims against Snyder, there were all sorts of problems with the lawsuit itself, including the absolutely ridiculous charge that scribbling devil features on his image was "anti-semitic." It's not. But, as some have pointed out, even if it was, being anti-semitic is not against the law. However, people digging into most of the other charges have found they're pretty questionable as well. For example, the article claimed that Snyder "was caught forging names as a telemarketer." Snyder claims this is false. However, what is true is that the company he owned, Snyder Communications paid a large fine for slamming -- which is effectively forging names. Snyder claims that it was the company, not him, who did this, and thus the charge is libelous.

What makes this claim particularly ironic, is that Snyder has focused his legal efforts in this case on... the parent company of the newspaper who wrote the letter. So, in Snyder's mind, apparently, when people at his companies do something illegal, his hands are clean. But, if someone at another company says something that kinda, sorta, might be untrue... liability goes all the way up to the top.

From a legal perspective, though, there were numerous questions as to why Snyder filed the lawsuit in New York. After all, all of the major players in the lawsuit are in and around the Washington DC/Maryland area. Paul Alan Levy suggests a reasonable answer: Washington DC and Maryland have reasonable anti-SLAPP laws that would likely get such a lawsuit tossed out quickly (and could subject Snyder to legal fees). New York, on the other hand, has a very narrow anti-SLAPP law, which does not apply to this case.

Even more amazing is that it appears that Snyder or his lawyer effectively admits upfront that this is a SLAPP attempt. In the letter sent to Washington City Paper's ultimate parent company, Atalaya, Snyder warns that fighting back against the suit "would not be a rational strategy for an investment fund such as yours" because "the cost of litigation would presumably outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper." That seems like a pretty clear admission that the purpose of the lawsuit is to suppress public speech.

Levy's point is that this lawsuit is yet another reminder of why we need a federal anti-SLAPP law, which would allow defendants in cases such as this to hit back quickly, and to deter similar cases which are filed to stifle criticism and comment. It's really unfortunate that Congress still has not prioritized a federal anti-SLAPP law, despite various proposals for one. Hopefully, Congressional support will come around soon.

Filed Under: anti-slapp, dan snyder, libel

Online Appliance Shop Makes Customers Sign Agreement Threatening Criminal Libel Suits For Negative Reviews

from the that's-called-lying dept

We've seen all sorts of retailers and service providers trying to cope with the fact that anyone can post reviews of their service online. In fact, we've seen doctors try to use contracts that assign the copyright (ahead of time) of any review over to those doctors, so they can issue a DMCA takedown on any review they don't like. Apparently, some others are simply making up laws. The NY Times covers how an online appliance retailer called Full House Appliances, has not only added a long, and legally questionable, terms of service to anyone who makes a purchase, but it also threatens those who make a negative review with felony libel charges.

Of course, as the article notes, these terms of service are all bark and no bite. Washington state, where the retailer is located, does not recognize libel as a criminal issue, so there is no "felony libel" there, despite the claims to the contrary. Furthermore, just because you agree to a terms of service like that, it still doesn't make a negative review libel unless there's actually libelous statements in the review.

The guy who runs the site (who wouldn't give his real name to the reporter) doesn't seem to care. He's just trying to scare off anyone who writes a negative review. Of course, all that should really do is scare off anyone from bothering to order from him. If someone presents you with a terms of service that threaten you with criminal charges for writing a negative review, it seems that would be a pretty clear sign that it's time to find a different retailer. Those terms seem like a bigger negative review than anything else out there. Of course, I'm also wondering if he's violating the law himself in threatening people with criminal charges based on absolutely nothing...

Filed Under: defamation, libel, online reviews

Kyiv Post Blocking Access From The UK To Protest UK's Libel Laws

from the one-way-to-make-a-point dept

We've discussed at great length the problems with the UK's libel laws, which have put a chilling effect on free speech and public participation. The problem of libel tourism has even resulted in the US passing laws saying that it will not enforce any such judgments in the US. Glyn Moody points us to the news that the Kyiv Post has apparently decided to protest UK libel laws by blocking access to the site if you're coming from the UK. The page in question states:

The Kyiv Post, effective Dec. 14, 2010, is blocking access to all web traffic originating from the United Kingdom in protest of the draconian libel laws there that hinder legitimate free speech and threaten the work of independent journalists, authors, scientists and others worldwide. In a phenomenon known as "libel tourism," rich and powerful plaintiffs file lawsuits in London -- "the libel capital of the world" -- to exploit laws stacked in their favor, stifling journalism and threatening news organizations and others with costly lawsuits.

Nice to see a media publication take a stand like that, even if it's mostly symbolic. Hopefully it will help spur the UK to finally reform its libel laws.

Filed Under: kyiv post, libel, protests, uk

Steam Engine Society Forced To Sell Steam Engine Because 13 Photographers Might Have (But Probably Didn't) See Article

from the time-for-reform dept

In our recent post concerning the attempt by the UK to reform its ridiculous defamation laws (finally), Ben pointed out a perfect example of why those libel laws need fixing. Apparently a volunteer society focused on preserving a specific train steam engine (the 6024) was forced to sell its carefully restored steam engine thanks to a highly questionable libel suit from the society's former chair, who was ousted in a dispute. The Society's newsletter, which goes almost entirely to society members, discussed the dispute with the former chair and that guy sued claiming libel. The Society pointed out that the newsletter only went to other society members and the court initially agreed. However, the former chairman pointed out that the newsletter was also sent out to a grand total of 13 photographers whose images appeared in the newsletter, but who were not members of the society. And the court found that because those 13 people might have read the article (even though no evidence was presented suggesting they did), that the libel charge was valid. So now, the Society had to sell off the engine that it had restored just to pay for the legal costs of defending itself... because 13 people might have (but probably didn't) see the article in question.

Filed Under: defamation, libel, uk

Is The UK Finally Going To Fix Its Awful Libel Laws?

from the or-will-they-sue-me-for-calling-their-libel-laws-awful? dept

For many years, there's been talk about how the UK really needed to fix its libel laws, which place much of the burden on the accused. This allows people and companies to often shut down fair and open debate on a subject, just by charging someone with libel. On top of that, it created a serious problem with "libel tourism," where people would be sued in the UK, even if the content originated elsewhere, to have the case heard under the stringent UK laws. For the last year or so there's been lots of talk about how the UK was really, really, really (no, really!) going to fix its libel laws, and it sounds like it might finally happen. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg recently announced rather specific plans to reform the current UK libel law -- which he referred to as an "international laughing stock."

While the details will certainly matter, he did lay out some specifics of what was planned, including a statutory defense for "speaking out in the public interest," as well as clarifying "fair comment and justification" defenses. Two other specifics: (1) large companies will have to show substantial damage before they can sue individuals or non-government organizations and (2) newspapers will get special privileges when covering foreign parliaments.

These all sound like steps in the right direction, though I am worried about those last two points, in that they seem to be setting up different rules for different organizations and people. Do they really mean "newspapers" or does that include purely web-based publications as well? Why will only large companies have to show that they've suffered damages? The worry is the more specific special rules you set up for special classes, the more the law becomes about carving out things around a law, rather than creating a general law that makes sense across the board.

Filed Under: defamation, libel, uk

Congresswoman Threatens To Sue Newspaper For 'Liable' Over Critical Column

from the first,-hire-a-better-lawyer... dept

If you're a politician -- especially one elected to the House of Representatives, taking a bit of criticism is sort of part of the job description. Back in November, the Florida Times-Union had a column by Ron Littlepage that was critical of Rep. Corrine Brown. If you read it, it's typical columnist fodder, and not all that different than you could find in plenty of other publications concerning this issue or that issue where the columnist disagreed with the politician's position. However, Rep. Brown apparently didn't like it at all, and had her lawyer threaten the newspaper, claiming the column was defamation.

First off, a politician accusing a newspaper of defamation due to a critical column is (1) unlikely to get anywhere in the courts (2) is likely a First Amendment violation and (3) is just a bad idea because all it does is call much more attention to both the critical comments and the amazingly thin skin of the politician in question.

But, if you read through the actual threat letter and the column (included at the end of this post), you realize that in this case, Rep. Brown's threats are even more ridiculous. First, the main thrust of the claim of defamation is that Rep. Brown "has delivered nothing for her minority constituents and is only feathering her own nest while in Washington." The (rather serious) problem? Littlepage's column does no such thing. Generally speaking, if you're going to accuse someone of defamation, it helps to actually use what they say, and not pretend they said something different. Specifically, rather than saying the above, Littlepage asks a question (twice):

Second, what exactly has Brown done for her minority constituents during the 17 years she's been in Congress?

Too many African-Americans continue to live in poverty. Too many African-Americans are out of work. Too many African-American youth are the perpetrators or victims of violent crime. Too many African-American students lag behind in school or drop out.

Brown promotes herself as one who brings home the pork. Her campaign slogan proclaims "Corrine Delivers!"

Besides feathering her own nest while in Washington, just exactly what has Brown delivered for her minority constituents?

At no point does he specifically state that she's delivered "nothing." He uses a rhetorical device of asking a question. Considering that the "nothing" claim would be the (weak) claim to any defamation case, the fact that he didn't actually say it looks pretty bad.

And, we're not done with how ridiculous this is yet. Beyond the questionable threat to have a politician sue a newspaper over criticism, and the claim that the columnist said something he did not, the lawyer writing the threat letter warned that it was Rep. Brown's "intent to bring an action for liable or slander." Yes, "liable." Even leaving aside the fact that "slander" is spoken words, and libel is written, so it makes no sense to include "slander," you would think a lawyer wouldn't screwup the difference between "libel" and "liable," and that if they did, someone would have caught it in proofreading.

Filed Under: corrine brown, criticism, defamation, journalism, libel, politics, slander

Blogger Sued, In Part, For Linking To Material Claimed To Be Defamatory

from the link-it-up dept

We've pointed in the past to some rather ridiculous situations in Canada concerning libel law. One key case involved a guy named Wayne Crookes, who not only sued major internet sites like Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia and MySpace for hosting content he believed to be defamatory towards himself, but he also sued Jon Newton of the site P2Pnet.net for merely linking to the content Crookes believed to be defamatory. A court in Canada eventually ruled that merely linking to potentially defamatory material is not defamation, and an appeals court agreed. Last I heard, the case had moved up to the Canadian Supreme Court. That case is still ongoing, but it looks like there may be a similar case brewing as well.

Reader JC points us to a short blogpost about another Canadian, named Richard Warman (interestingly, both Warman and Crookes have ties to the Canadian Green Party, though, I'm going to say that's likely a coincidence), who apparently is suing some bloggers for (in part) linking to material he finds defamatory. Unfortunately, in all the sites talking about this, no one seems to be willing to state the full story of the lawsuit, or show the full filing. Instead, they just show parts of the filing. But, at least in that part, it does appear that one of the complaints is that the blog in question linked to a site that Warman believed to be defamatory. It's unclear what else is involved in the lawsuit (and if anyone has the details, please pass them along in the comments). However, just the snippet provided is troubling enough.

Even if the content in question was totally defamatory, it certainly raises some pretty serious questions about whether merely linking to content itself can or should be seen as defamatory as well. As noted in the Newton/Crookes case, so far, Canadian courts have been rejecting such claims, and hopefully that holds up with the Supreme Court ruling. But in the meantime, it certainly sounds like others are still making similar claims, which certainly feel like efforts to stifle freedom of expression.

Filed Under: canada, free speech, libel, linking, richard warman

Libel Cases In The UK Hit A Ten Year High... Just As People Were Declaring Libel Dead In The US

from the something's-wrong.. dept

Just a few months ago, we were writing about a report declaring "the end of libel" because many of the big US media companies were facing no current libel suits -- for the first time that people could remember. Of course, we suggested there were other factors involved, including an increase in libel suits against others, such as blogs. However, it does seem that, beyond the strong free speech protections against silly libel lawsuits, many are realizing that filing a defamation lawsuit is simply not the best response anymore. In fact, it's often easier to just get your own story out there yourself. The initial reason behind libel laws was that they were needed in a time when the press was controlled by just a few players. However, in an age where anyone can be the press, the need for libel laws actually diminishes, as there are other, better, remedies in many cases.

Unfortunately, the UK is still stuck with its incredibly antiquated libel laws that put the burden on the accused and can create significant problems for people accused in cases where the goals are clearly to silence speech someone doesn't like, rather than deal with actual defamation. That can create massive chilling effects.

And, in the meantime, it can create a rash of libel lawsuits. So just a few months removed from the (not quite accurate) news that libel is "over" in the US, comes the news that libel cases in the UK have hit a 10-year high, fueled in large part by the internet. While the internet should be seen as an alternative to libel lawsuits, instead many are now seeing comments of others as being worth a libel suit in the UK. The article quotes people pointing out that these lawsuits are "expensive and often unnecessary." Seems like even more evidence for the UK to finally getting around to fixing libel law in the UK.

Filed Under: defamation, libel, uk, us

Canadian Man Charged With Criminal Libel By The Police

from the criminal,-not-civil dept

Slashdot points us to the news that that a Canadian man has been charged by the police with criminal libel charges, for criticizing some other policy. He had accused the Calgary police with perjury, corruption, and obstruction of justice on his website, and the police felt it was libelous. The RCMP (do they still call them Mounties?) did the investigation, since the Calgary police were the subject, but either way it seems ridiculous to (a) charge someone with criminal libel and (b) to do it over him criticizing a government organization, such as the police. Even if his statements were untrue, going after the guy just looks petty.

Filed Under: canada, criminal libel, criticism, libel, police

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.

Filed Under: defamation, libel, mistakes, sarah jones, thedirt.com, thedirty.com