Defamation over internet

[cymbol]

What is the name of your state? CA, the real sunshine state

While browsing old threads in attempt to upgrade my legal knowledge from "completely ignorant" to "just enough to be a danger to himself", I read a story , and the answers to which sparked more questions.

Let's assume my name is John Doe, and someone opened up JohnDoe.com, a site filled with insidious lies and indecent material that would make <insert your own celebrity>'s toes curl. I wouldn't have a legal leg to lean on, would I, seeing that John Doe is a very common name.

How unique would my name have to be in this case for me to have case of defamation? If there is another John Doe who actually owns or somehow endorses the site, then I am SOL, am I not?

There must be hundreds if not thousands of people in the world who have the same name as me in its anglicized form, and my name is quite rare. How can anyone else be reasonably sure that any domain is targeted toward him specifically? Does it change anything if I suspect that one of my co-workers instigated this prank?

Before I make a report, don't I need to be reasonably sure that

1. My name is unique, or this site, besides name, alludes to me in such a way that I can be uniquely identified?

2. I have reasonable suspicion and/or evidence against those responsible? i.e. I can't simply point a finger at my co-worker and say, "bug his house, he did it!"

In the seminal post, a mother complained that her daughter's name was misused, wouldn't she have to prove the uniqueness of her daughter's name, or at least the directness beyond reasonable doubt (or am I confusing criminal terms?) of the homonymous website?

Alternatively, if I share a name with <insert your least favorite politician>, can I make a self-deprecating website without fear of defamation? Or is this an issue of dilution?

thanks for your thoughts,

 

[quincy]

The answers to your questions depend on the circumstances. It is not always easy to determine whether a written work can lead to an actionable defamation suit or not.

First, a person must be identifiable in order for there to be an actionable defamation case. This is usually easy when a person is identified by name, but when the name is a common one, it is obviously more difficult. John Doe, for instance, would have to prove he was the John Doe written about and defamed by the writer. If a third person can reasonably infer from what was written that the defamatory material refers to the John Doe who is suing, there is a better chance of bringing a successful suit against the writer. But more proofs are generally needed. If John Doe is known to the writer, the odds of a successful suit goes up. If they have no connection at all, the odds of a successful suit goes down.

Even if a writer tries to disguise the real John Doe by changing Doe's name to Joe Smith, or changing certain personal traits, if the disguised Smith/Doe can be recognized as John Doe by others, there can be a defamation suit. (And then you have an additional problem with some Joe Smith potentially suing, too. )

Problems can also arise when a writer uses the name John Doe just for the heck of it, not even knowing any John Doe, and it turns out there is a litigious living John Doe who is remarkably similar to the one the writer conjured up. If anyone can reasonably believe the fictitious character John Doe is the same one as the living and litigious John Doe, the writer can find himself being sued for defamation, even when there was no intention at all to defame a real person.

Most books will have disclaimers saying something like "all characters are fictional and any resemblance to people living or dead is coincidental", but that disclaimer does not protect a writer, or publisher, from being sued. Publishers now often have insurance policies to cover their writers in case of a defamation suit.

Politicians are harder to defame (for a lot of reasons ), and what is written has to be shown to be written with actual malice. If you share the same name, it would be harder for the politician to prove actual malice. It would be the same if you shared your name with any public figure, like a celebrity.

Your major problems with sharing a name with someone famous, more so than with just a common name, is if you wanted to use your name commercially. You could not use your own name to market a clothing line, say, if your name was Ralph Lauren.

At any rate, anyone can always sue someone else for any reason, and we live in a very litigious society. It is always wisest to avoid defamatory material period, and to check with a lawyer in your area if you have questions about specifics.

 

[cymbol]

thanks quincy I was just being curious, and you have answered my questions, the chief of which being whether the plaintiff has to prove reasonable recognition and connection between a website, and its contents, to the plaintiff.

There is just so much reading involved. I haven't even finished reading the wikipedia entries - pause for laughter - on punitive and compensatory damages.

 

[quincy]

You are welcome, cymbol.

I did want to emphasize that, just because a Plaintiff must show the website and its contents are about him when he sues for defamation, that does not prevent him from suing in the first place, proof or no proof, and the website owner would be well-advised to avoid any defamatory material at all.

 

[EliteProgrammer]

Time And Money

You are welcome, cymbol.

I did want to emphasize that, just because a Plaintiff must show the website and its contents are about him when he sues for defamation, that does not prevent him from suing in the first place, proof or no proof, and the website owner would be well-advised to avoid any defamatory material at all.

I have heard this many times so I was asking you another question today in this area if that is OK?

I have heard that to pursue a defamation case against somebody or some company it often will cost as much or more than you you can get awarded in court and can take years to resolve. It can also be very difficult to proove a loss of money due to the defamation.

Is this true?

Thanks,

EliteProgrammer

 

[quincy]

Well, it depends on the circumstances, but, yes, that is often the case. Some defamation claims are easier to prove than others, and the targets of the suits wealthier, so it can be worth the time and expense to pursue a defamation action. You hear about million dollar judgments against large companies, for instance, but those are the exception rather than the rule. For an ordinary person to sue another ordinary person over a defamatory comment made on a website, for instance, it is generally not worth the time and the effort. But ordinary people continue to sue over such matters anyway. And the number of such suits are growing rapidly.

If you have a legitimate defamation claim, it is hard to ignore it and walk away, although in many cases that may be the wisest thing to do financially.