Libel

Floyd Abrams published an op-ed today in the Wall Street Journal that highlights the impact of foreign law, especially English libel law, on speech in the United States. Abrams notes:   read more »

A Vermont judge has dismissed the libel lawsuit filed against Chris Grotke and Lise LePage, co-founders and owners of iBrattleboro.com, a widely acclaimed community journalism site based in Brattleboro, Vermont, ruling that Grotke and LePage are immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230").

The lawsuit, which was filed by Effie Mayhew on November 16, 2007, alleges that David Dunn, the former executive director of Rescue Inc., an emergency medical services organization where Mayhew works as a volunteer, libeled her in a comment on the site. While Mayhew's complaint didn't make any allegations that Grotke or LePage authored the allegedly defamatory statements, her lawyer (as well as several commentators in Vermont) asserted that iBrattleboro.com should be liable because the site admins failed to edit or remove Dunn's comment.   read more »

Breaking news from Above the Law: Anthony Ciolli, former defendant in the controversial AutoAdmit case, has filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against the two plaintiffs in that case, their lawyers, ReputationDefender and one of its employees, and the shadowy "T14 Talent." He alleges wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contract, and unauthorized use of name or likeness. It looks like Ciolli has outed one of the pseudonymous defendants in the AutoAdmit case -- "pauliewalnuts."

Here's the complaint -- we're still digesting it.

Update:  I didn't mean to be snarky about this lawsuit. Assuming that his allegations are true, I have a lot of sympathy for Ciolli, and he appears to have some actionable claims. Marc Randazza, his attorney in the AutoAdmit case, has a thoughtful post on the new lawsuit.

I previously blogged at length about Mario Lavandeira's victory under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) in the libel lawsuit brought against him by celebrity DJ and Lindsey Lohan pal Samantha Ronsen. Now, my RSS feeds are clogged with reports that the California court has awarded Lavendeira nearly $85,000 in attorneys fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. I guess that's what happens when you mess with a blogger with some resources! Kudos to Bryan Freedman, Lavandeira's attorney, for defending this case so successfully.

Last week, a California state court dismissed Rachel Neuwirth's libel claim against Washington-state blogger Richard Silverstein and university professor Joel Beinin pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). This is a tremendous victory for Silverstein and Beinin, and a great decision in terms of maintaining some breathing space for political debate and academic freedom. For better or worse, the kind of hyperbole and insult-slinging that features in this case goes on in academic and policy circles, especially when it comes to Middle East-related topics like Zionism, terrorism, torture, and neo-conservative "democracy" initiatives. (For other examples in our legal threats database, see Khalaji v. Derakhshan and CAIR v. Whitehead.) While calling someone a "Kahanist swine" might not be a model of reasoned debate, it's important that the courts erect some kind of obstacles to turning every heated dispute or case of hurt feelings into a libel claim.   read more »

Last week, I blogged about a lawsuit filed by Effie Mayhew against Chris Grotke and Lise LePage, co-founders and owners of iBrattleboro.com, in which Mayhew claims that Grotke and LePage bear liability for a comment a user posted on the iBrattleboro site. Today, Grotke and LePage filed their anticipated motion for jugdment on the pleadings, arguing that they are immune from liability under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA 230").

As I mentioned in my previous post, Grotke and LePage are almost certainly shielded from liability under CDA 230. After reading their motion and re-reading Mayhew's complaint, it is clear that the court should dismiss the claims against them. Of course, the case would continue against David Dunn, who is the author of the allegedly defamatory comment, as he does not have a basis for immunity under CDA 230.

According to Grotke and LePage's motion, this case meets all of the requirements for immunity under CDA 230:

iBrattleboro.com fits the definition of an interactive computer service as contemplated by the CDA because it provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server and access to the Internet. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2). . . .   read more »