Freedom of Speech vs. Defamatory Statements

There's a reason parents tell their children not to call each other names. If you do it as an adult the consequences are more extreme than a mere slap on the wrist. Someone who spreads malicious information about another on the internet can be sued for defamation.

What is defamation? Defamation is (a) a defamatory statement, (b) published to a third party, (c) which the speaker knew or should have known was false.

Defamatory statements harm the reputation of the targeted individual. Defamatory Per Se are statements so clearly defamatory that the targeted individual doesn't have to show there was harm to his or her reputation. Example of this include allegations of criminal activity, sexual misconduct, or allegations that a person has a horrible or serious disease.

So why can't you say what you want online? What happened to freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment guarantees certain rights, but just like it's illegal to yell "fire" in a busy train station, it's illegal to spread false statements about a person on the internet.

With the advent of the internet, more and more content creators have found means for expressing their opinions, ideas, and knowledge base (both good and bad). However, these technological advancements have allowed for the easy accesibility to forums for posting opinions, such as Blogger, Wordpress, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

For example, the California Defamation Law Blog posted a nasty exchange between Perez Hilton and Kirstie Alley on Twitter. In the exchange, Alley compared Hilton to Nazis, called him a pedophile repeatedly and then characterized him as "like a rapist". Perez Hilton responded back by asking who Alley's attorneys were and delcaring that she was making libelous, defamatory statements. Perez Hilton is right, it's not okay to spread false statements about another online. This is clearly defamation!

On top of the crazed celebrity rants, The New York Law Blog is reporting a 216% increase in libel suits against bloggers in the last three years. The New York Law Blog also suggests that the reason for the increase in number is homeowners liability insurance.

I know, you're thinking: WHAT!? Yes. Many homeowner's insurance policies include a clause for libel including attorneys fees! So now bloggers have become the target of defamation suites. In the past, nobody sued small bloggers because the libel clause didn't exist, now it does and libel suits have grown astronomically. If your a blogger and your policy doesn't include this clause, maybe you should update your policy just in case you have a stressful day at work and decide to blog about how much you love your job and your boss.

Even if an anonymous blogger wants to write something nasty and remain unknown, that right doesn't exist. A blog is not a personal diary. It's not for your eyes only. The content bloggers write is public and even if its not searchable, it can be found. Bloggers need to beware of what they write and double check and re-read everything. It's not okay to spread lies, to make false statements or to intentionally or unintentionally attack another's reputation. Anonymity does not exist on the internet, so bloggers should be prepared to take responsibiliy for their statements.

It seems the safest bet is to stick to the age-old principles any good mother would teach: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all. But if I stick to this line of reasoning, I can't help wondering what happened to freedom of speech? Our most controversial and beloved 1ST AMENDMENT has to carry more weight than an age-old admonishment?

Isn't the point of having access to an open forum like the internet to share ideas and thoughts? False statements? No. But critiques, suggestions, insights and satires? Yes. So maybe the saying should be: "Don't lie, but feel free to question and critique." Either way, content generators (aka: bloggers, twitter lovers, facebook stalkers, etc.) should be aware that the law still applies to online activity.