Currently one of the most popular
social networks in the world, Twitter provides a platform for registered users
to broadcast their thoughts in real time – provided those thoughts can be
communicated in 140 characters or less. Such a simple concept, yet it has drawn
over 500 million users who are generating about 400 million tweets per day.
With so many people with so much to say, it is no wonder that Twitter-related
libel lawsuits have been on the rise.
Libel involves the publication of untruths for the purpose of
harming another person’s reputation. The statement in question must claim to be
fact, not merely an expressed opinion. On of the first libel suits arising from claims
made on Twitter was Simorangkir v. Love in 2009, when fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir sued
musician Courtney Love based on several of Love’s tweets about her. The tweets
contained several serious accusations, including lying, stealing, assault, drug
dealing, and prostitution. The matter ended up being settled by Love’s party
out of court, to the tune of $430,000.
The case brought up several
interesting legal concerns regarding Twitter. The most obvious of these is that
tweets can indeed be considered libelous. Tweeting, along with a host of other
types of blogging, is considered “publishing” material. Publication is defined
as a third party seeing, reading, or hearing the remarks in question. This
means that the number of followers you have on Twitter has no bearing on
whether or not a tweet of yours can be considered libelous, because even one
singular person reading it defines it as “published”.
Another interesting concern is the
classification of what is considered claims of fact, or what is merely an
expressed opinion. When libel cases go to court, it is the judge’s
responsibility to take the context of the remarks in question into
consideration. But tweets are unique in that their 140-character limit doesn’t
really allow for much, if any, context. Arguments have been made about the
freewheeling nature of Twitter, suggesting that any reasonable reader of tweets
would understand that most claims being made on Twitter would be expressions of
opinion, rather than statements of fact. However, this does not provide
automatic immunity for statements made on Twitter, and time will tell whether
or not this argument will gain any traction in the courtroom.
I think that this is a very interesting legal situation. Twitter seems so informal that it sounds a little weird to consider a tweet as "published." On the other hand, the reality is that a tweet is mostly public, and libel can be just as real on twitter as in other situations.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is a place that abounds in short sighted comments. It seems like, especially in the world of celebrities, people are always taking heat for comments that were carelessly posted. Considering the social nature of twitter, I doubt most people even realize that tweets are considered "published." Considering the roots of Twitter, it seems odd to take something that is largely used for expressing opinions and then try and determine if someone was merely stating an opinion or trying to establish a fact. Of course, in certain cases this would be obvious. For example, if someone were to maliciously Tweet "I saw so and so having an an affair," this would obviously be an intent to establish a fact. This could have serious consequences for whoever was supposedly seen having an affair.
In spite of Twitter being mostly an arena of opinions, I think there should be responsibility for libelous Tweets, because after all, Twitter can be just as damaging, if not more so, than other forms of libel. The fact that it can be difficult to determine the context of a Tweet isn't a strong enough counter argument. If someone is going to Tweet something that is potentially libelous, then they should make the effort to establish that they are stating an opinion, not a fact. Which I suppose could also be controversial, because maybe some people think the opinion aspect is implied considering that it is Twitter. Either way, libel is libel no matter the medium that is used.
I also think it is interesting to consider the role that Twitter played in the case of Mr. Ravi and Clementi.Apparently they figured that the 140 character limit was sufficient to determine context in his case. Interesting that they were willing to use such short statements (that involve little context/explanation) as evidence to convict Mr. Ravi of something that could be punishable for up to 10 years in prison. If they are willing to use tweets to send someone to prison for 10 years then why not use them in cases of libel? Though one could rightly wonder if Tweets, considering their short and distorted nature (meaning that people often post things in the heat of the moment, not reflecting their true opinions/intents), should be used in cases of such consequence. I am beginning to wonder if Tweets should have been given the weight that they were in the case of Mr. Ravi...
DeleteI did not know that things like this went on over Twitter. It seems like a line is being formed with these cases between strong opinions and libelous Tweets. There are probably people with few followers who post libelous Tweets that go unnoticed. At first I thought that this was just people getting mad over Tweets that ruined their reputation, but after reading the Simorangkir v. Love case, it looks like these Tweets are more than that. They cause emotional distress and have economic impacts. Those sound like some of the considerations for a civil case that we discussed. Therefore I would say that Tweets can be considered libelous and should be brought to court. Could this be another form of cyber bullying? That is illegal.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Chad, I think it will be especially interesting to see how stare decisis comes into play with prior and future Twitter litigation. Just another reason to say what you mean and mean what you say in everything one does. One one hand it is nice that people, especially public figures, are being held accountable to the comments they make. However, as Carina said, it is not very fair to only hold some people accountable for libelous posts - that is the one's that go noticed and are by more famous people. Besides, most cyber bullying is probably not extremely obvious and goes on in Tweets that are not very public.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not support cyber bullying, it is interesting to think of youth who cyber bully being taken to court for "criminal" cases with serious consequences. Prior to technology and cyber bullying, I was not under the impression that most youth bullying cases were really prosecuted as criminal in the past. With all the litigation occurring, I have to ask the question if we really want to move forward with New Jersey and begin to treat bullying as a major offense of the youth....I am sure people who have been bullied, are bullies, or even that haven't been bullied will see this very differently.
Twitter seems to be the cause of much headache in regards to the law, the underlying reason being the public nature of Twitter itself contrasted by the expectation of privacy and appearance of informality construed by its users. However, the fact of the matter is that Twitter, and everything posted on it, is not private, nor is it meant to be. Twitter is essentially a public forum which fosters conversation and the sharing of ideas - public and sharing being the key terms here. Anything posted publicly, and thus through that line of reasoning anything posted on Twitter, can and may be considered a publication in accordance to laws defining such, most notably 17 USC 101 (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/copyrightact.html), and thus may be subject to libel laws if defamatory.
ReplyDeleteShould we really consider tweets to be publications if they are made in settings which are considered informal? I would argue yes in that the formality of the setting is of no consequence, it is only the act of sharing itself that matters. One cannot reasonably maintain an expectation of privacy whilst posting ideas publicly in any shape or form. As long as such ideas are viewable, even if only to an audience of one, they may be construed as shared, and therefore public.
Intent must also be taken into consideration while debating whether tweets actually may be considered publications. If the user's intent is to keep the information private, and therefore not accessible to others, then the tweet could not be considered libelous. However, the intent of all who post on Twitter is, by definition itself, not to keep one's ideas private. The intent of a tweet is to publicly share information, otherwise why even use Twitter in the first place? Why not simply keep a journal?
I agree with Chad in that people should think before they tweet. Even just a slight change in wording could alter the legality of a tweet (i.e. a defamatory statement versus a simple personal opinion).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI hope that people are held more accountable for what they tweet. If people want to tweet about illegal things that they (or people they're acquainted with) do there should be consequences. But like others have said, it's virtually impossible to hold everyone accountable for what they post, leaving those in the public eye more vulnerable, which isn't necessarily fair. With cyber-bullying being such a predominate problem in today's society it makes sense for tweets to be used for accountability purposes. It all comes down to people being smart about what they're posting on the Internet for everyone to see.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to argue for tweet privacy when you're basically tweeting to the world. As for bullying I believe it is even more cruel on twitter since it's a public display of it. On to the main topic, libel. If its a trivial matter, such as gossip or something outlandish, libel really shouldn't apply (people don't actually take everything on the internet seriously-surprised?). However, there are serious accusations such as illegal conduct that should be pursued as libel. If it's a joke you can always #justkidding or use some other means to show it's not true. Damaging a reputation can easily be done, especially in a period of anger, due to how easy it is to tweet, and how hard it is to take it back.
ReplyDeleteAs is stated above, twitter is published and can contain libel if it is used to harm a person’s reputation with false comments; because of this, people convicted of twitter libel are increasing with the increased use of twitter. I feel like this principle is pretty clear. Many people read tweets, and if a tweet is false and damaging, the “tweeter” should be punished. Just as if someone were to say something libelous in a newspaper, since twitter is now a media in and of itself, like we have discussed in class, the information on twitter should be treated as any other published material.
ReplyDeleteIn the age of social media where everyone and the statements they make are instantaneously available to the world, there are benefits such as the quick flow of information and news which creates an informed public. However, with the mass pubic access social media creates, there is also a downside to the quick spread of information and increasing lack of privacy. Instead of sharing exciting or shocking information with people privately or first-hand, many people just go straight to their twitter accounts- which makes sharing with a large number of friends and people easy and practical. People’s social lives seem to always have been heavily influenced by rumors and gossip, but as social media merges the spheres of one’s personal social life and that of the public media, what may have previously been untraceable rumors that stayed in a small circle of people are now becoming libelous publications. Given the nature of social comments and interactions, it is understandable why this is becoming a problem. Twitter is indeed a form of publication that can reach massive numbers of people (especially in cases of celebrities that have a large following) and damage a reputation on a global scale in a matter of minutes. Though I do think that the claim that the very nature of twitter render tweets opinion on the basis of assumption holds some validity, I also think that the far reaching potential of twitter and the damage the tweets could potentially cause are much too great for the claim to prevail in the courts. It seems that as the population becomes more accustomed to social media and the precedent establishing the legal repercussions of tweets, posts, etc. is created, people will need to learn to put a finer filter on what they post to the internet for the world to see or face the legal consequences.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree that tweets can constitute libel. As stated, tweets, by their very nature, are to be shared publicly, and are published therein. I understand the controversy that can surround tweets issued as a result of an excited utterance, but the fact remains that said information was still posted to a social media network, which does take some amount of pre-meditation. The argument of whether or not a tweet can be considered an excited utterance is a debate for another time, but it still relates to the topic of tweets as libel. The first amendment allows people to say what they want, and it applies, within the contraints of the Terms and Conditions, to twitter as well. That being said however, it is up to the user to practice discretionary measures in regards to what is posted. The twitter user is held liable for what is tweeted under their username, and if said user is prepared to utilize twitter, or any social media outlet as a method to distribute opinions or information, they should be prepared to face the consequences. I'm not saying that there aren't mitigating circumstances that would require an individual ruling, but if precedent were to be established concerning this issue, the most rational and logical decision would be to hold individuals accountable for whatever is published. Additionally, on the topic of tweets being published, I feel that any public tweet should be considered a published work.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting case because the line between opinion and libel can be a very fine one, especially on twitter. A lot of people speak their mind on twitter much more than they would on any other social media forum. This is when the case of excited utterances comes into play. Forming a tweet isn't something that always takes a lot of thought. You only have 140 characters to express yourself so you can't think it out too much. Though some people could be using twitter for other reasons because it is a way to spread information quickly. People should be help responsible for what they post on twitter, though it doesn't always have to turn into a court case.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with many comments above, individuals using social media should be punished for their words. I have been thinking of the "malicious defamation" part of libel. Especially when whole populations are taking to the blogosphere and twitter with "facts" about politicians of opposing parties. Not that Obama or Romney have the time to comb through millions of libelous tweets and the time or reputation to go through a lawsuit, just an interesting thought during a height of political discourse.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if these same libel suits happen on other social media sites, like Facebook or MySpace. It seems radical to me that tweets would be considered libelous because tweeting is akin to making an excited utterance. Though I admit that Twitter hypothetically could be used in a libelous fashion, so the fact that there are libel suits based on tweets shouldn't surprise me.
ReplyDeleteI would like to just say that no two people are the same, if you gave a single paper clip to everyone in the world - lots of people would nothing with it, others would through it away, some would use it on paper, but a few could use it to save the world and others could use it as a weapon- the possibilities are endless.
ReplyDeleteI myself fail to see the point of twitter - though i have nothing against it - but i know of those that have used it to bring good to the world and others that have turned it into a weapon.
Many might argue that this could fall under the first amendments "freedom of the press" and I am all for the voicing of opinions, the first amendment was put into place to create controversy- discussion from two opposing sides are what drive this country forward. But there is nothing to be gained from slander, which this is an example of, and is not protected under the first amendment.
And nether is killing someone with a paper clip.
Delete