Could you be liable for your Tweets?
 

(CNN) -- In a case that would have been impossible even five years ago, bad-girl rocker Courtney Love is being sued for libel by a fashion designer for allegedly slamming the woman on Twitter.

The suit claims that after a disagreement over what Love should pay Dawn Simorangkir for the clothes she designed, Love posted allegedly derogatory and false comments about the designer -- among them that she had a "history of dealing cocaine" -- on her now-discontinued Twitter feed.

But as technology evolves faster than the laws that govern free speech online, it's not just the famous who are finding trouble.

Consider the case of Amanda Bonnen and her former landlord. Bonnen, an Illinois resident, is accused of using Twitter to tell another user: "Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon Realty thinks it's okay."

Horizon Group Management LLC, the company that owned the apartment in question, sued Bonnen for libel over the alleged tweet. Horizon is seeking $50,000 in damages.

Legal experts say such Internet-related cases are being watched closely because they confront new and unaddressed areas of American law.


link

Libel's libel.

Agree with Kevin - libel is libel, regardless of what form it is communicated in.

But truth is always an absolute defense to libel. If Ms. Bonnen can show that her apartment was indeed moldy and the landlord did nothing about it, then she'll be fine (though unfortunate she has to go through the litigation, which stinks for her).

Similarly, if Courtney Love can show that the designer indeed has a history of dealing coke, she'd be fine.

Though I'm more apt to believe that Ms. Bonnen was being truthful as opposed to Courtney Love.

Exactly. Despite the lede ("In a case that would have been impossible even five years ago") and the faulty premise ("as technology evolves faster than the laws that govern free speech online"), there's really nothing new and no news here.

The confusing thing is that most folks -- those who aren't journalists or don't write things for public consumption are largely unaware of what libel is. They may have studied it in their journalism class in high school, but that's probably the extent of their knowledge.

It's funny, and maybe telling, that all of the replies to this thread thus far have been lawyers essentially saying 'duh.'

Perhaps what we have here is not an issue of new law, but rather a lack of public education and preparedness for being suddenly able to communicate in such a public manner and without an editor trying to make sure your publication doesn't get sued.

Goodness, I really hate Twitter (and facebook). People just don't know how to shut up. It SHOULD come back to bite them. Even if the things are true, what's the point of posting it on the Internet? :rolleyes:

Very true. But is too much to expect that a news organization like CNN would understand libel?

<Like>

(ok, I just made that up. There is no html for a "like" button")

No.. it's a terribly written story. The reporter could have gone down the street and stopped a random lawyer in the hall at the courthouse... or they could have pulled their notes from the communication law class they probably took in college.

Or maybe it's just another one of those "OMFG INTERNETS/TECHNOLOGY" pieces where we pretend there's something new when it's been with us (in this case) since probably around the 13th Century A.D.

Which is exactly what I thought. The only "law" related class that I took in college was journalism law. As soon as I saw the thread title, I knew exactly where this was going.

Or don't forget "Oh No!! Another old attention whore on the internet" story ;)

*starts legal process to sue you*