Online Libel – Media Tech Law

Dirty Needle: Tattoo Parlor Sues Competitor for Defamation

Posted November 9, 2011 by Kate Tummarello 0

Two dueling tattoo parlors down the road from one another in Mobile, Alabama. It could be the premise of a TLC reality show. It’s not (yet) a TV show, but it IS a court case recently decided by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. In September, that court ruled in favor of Chassity Ebbole, owner of “LA Body Art” tattoo parlor in Mobile, who had sued the owners of the competing “Demented Needle” tattoo shop for libel and wrongful invasion of privacy.

Ebbole claimed that Demented Needle owner Paul Averette had been telling customers and others that Ebbole’s shop used equipment infected with diseases such as Hepatitis C and HIV, claiming also that Averette had told the world that Ebbole had infected herself.

Online Content – When is Content “Conduct”?

Posted May 18, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I wrote last week about the proliferation of the law of libel on the internet, but the same explosion of opportunities for litigation – and risks to would-be publishers – applies via the internet to all forms of speech. Libel is still libel, but more cases are pushing arguments that speech is conduct that can be sanctioned and criminalized. And for much the same reasons.

As I wrote:

Because like a lot of things that the internet did not change, it did not change the law of libel. In terms of what the internet did change, two things in particular are striking: First, the now potentially worldwide audience for anything published. And second, and sometimes of even more significance, the removal of barriers to entry. Or put another way: Everyone is a prospective publisher.

Several recent stories vividly illustrate the point, including an article in last Thursday’s New York Times about suicide chat rooms and prominent recent lawsuits in New Jersey and Louisiana involving attempts to “out” the names of anonymous online authors.

The Times reported that a Minnesotan named William F. Melchert-Dinkel was charged with aiding the suicide deaths of a British man in 2005 and a Canadian woman in 2008.

Apple App Store Rejects Content – There’s More!

Posted May 7, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

I recently wrote about the dust-up following the awarding of a Pulitzer for political commentary to online cartoonist Mark Fiore, when it was revealed that Apple had rejected Fiore’s proposed iPhone App several months before Fiore’s Pulitzer fame. As had been widely reported, Apple subsequently invited Fiore to re-apply, which Fiore promptly did and now, evidently, Fiore’s cartoon app is available for download through the store.

Commentary on the episode leaned heavily to the view of “what gall!” of Apple to presume rights to regulate content. So, for example, Rob Pegoraro wrote in the Washington Post last week:

If this conduct seems arbitrary, that’s because Apple gives itself that liberty. The Cupertino, Calif., company’s iPhone developer agreement, as published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says Apple can reject an application “at any time” if it thinks rejection would be “prudent or necessary.”

Read More

Online Libel – Reviews, Comments – Libel: It’s Real and It’s Spectacular!

Posted April 30, 2010 by Andrew Mirsky 0

Eric Felten brilliantly skewers the supposed credibility of the online “marketplace of ideas” when he recently wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal:

Spend any time on the Internet and – like the naif in the ‘Casablanca’ gambling room dumbfounded when the wheel comes up 22-black twice in a row – one’s bound to ask, ‘Say, are you sure this place is honest?’

This sort of thing seems oddly hilarious and at the same time naïve in the same way as the fool in Casablanca, in whose defense one could at least say it was a different time. Last I checked, there was no giant sign over the entrance to the internet saying “tread warily here”, although Felten’s point about the sensitivity of individuals to words being written about them is hardly a new concept. Just one small point of reference: I handle a fair amount of pre-publication review of publications for libel (i.e. in advance of actual publication), and one thing I usually drill into my publishing clients is being somewhat sensitive to the litigatory likelihood of the person about whom words are being published.

I’m not saying shy away from controversial journalism, and it’s advice that probably did not compel the muckracking vision of Woodward and Bernstein or the “American Century” mantra of Henry Luce. Nonetheless, don’t ask a libel lawyer for advice unless you’re willing at least to consider whom you’re writing about if one of your goals is simply to avoid getting sued.
Read More

MediaTech Law

By MIRSKY & COMPANY, PLLC