While media in the form of radio,
television, and newspaper can be controlled or instantly turned off by
authorities that run them, social media provides us with a constant freedom to
express our thoughts and ideas. Since Facebook was first launched in 2004, it
has grown to about 750 million users worldwide, and Twitter, which was launched
in 2006, has grown to about 175 million users worldwide (ediscovery). With
influence to this many users, celebrities and public figures have the power to
destroy companies, products, or themselves and other people with their tweets.
On Twitter, a new concept has been
introduced called “Twibel,” which is libel on Twitter. We know from class that
traditional libel involves the following: defamation in the form of written, broadcast,
or published words that are seen by others, which make claim(s) that are
implied as fact, creating a negative image of the defamed. The defamed can be a
person, business, product, group, government, or nation.
One
recent example of Twibel is the case Simorangkir vs. Love, which was settled in
2011 for $430,000 plus interest (digital media). Simorangkir, a fashion
designer, sued Courtney Love in California State Court over the statements that
were made on Love’s Twitter, MySpace, and etsy.com (an online marketplace for
independent designers) accounts. According to Simorangkir, Love used her
accounts to publish “not only delusional accusations and lies, but threats of
harm” after a business dispute arose between the two. For example, Simorangkir said that Love falsely accused her of lying, stealing, dealing drugs, assault,
prostitution, and losing custody of her child. Love filed a motion to strike,
but the court denied this motion because the judge found that the subject of
the Twitter post was not a matter of public concern as Love claimed it to be.
Love
claimed that the post was a public matter in the sense that Simorangkir often
associated with celebrities and wrote about her celebrity friends on her
website – she also posted pictures of Love wearing her clothes, which made
their business relationship known to the public. Love thought that the
constitution would protect her Tweets because she said that they served as a
warning for customers to not use Simonrangkir’s services. The California Judge,
though, did not believe that Twitter was a place where defamation could not
occur simply because of the fact that it is a public service - her words
were still considered to be defamatory instead of a public warning.
If
Love wanted to warn the public about Simonrangkir’s services, then she could
have done so in a way that was not defamatory. The Internet provides many
review websites and venues that professionally critique public services. Still,
this case is a good example of the fact that anything that is posted on a
public website, including Twitter, has the potential for embarrassing
consequences. By making her relationship with Love known to the public, Simorangkir subjected
herself to the potential consequences that could occur from a falling-out
between the two. Her actions (posting pictures of Love in her clothes) still
did not merit the defamatory statements that occurred on the public website,
however, which is why she ultimately won the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment