Graydon Head

Blog: Jack "Out of the Box"

Welcome to Jack "Out of the Box." This is a spin-off of the Firm's InfoLaw Newsletter, much like "CSI: Miami" is a spin-off from "CSI." Except without all the corpses. I plan to update the blog at least weekly. Really. It's not like when I used to promise my mom to clean my room once a week. I'm more mature now. And of course, the InfoLaw Newsletter will continue every two weeks. The blog will feature shorter pieces, and ideally, reader feedback. Should be fun. Oh yeah, and informative.

Smells Like Twitter Libel

Jan 17, 2014

Courtney Love, the widow of Kurt Cobain, is a defendant in a libel lawsuit that arises from a tweet she sent.  Here’s the tweet in its entirety:  “I was f—— devestated [sic] when Rhonda J. Holmes esq. of san diego was bought off @FairNewsSpears perhaps you can get a quote.”  Rhonda Holmes was Love’s lawyer in happier times, but the relationship went south when Holmes chose not to assist Love in bringing a fraud case against the people managing Cobain’s estate. 

What prompts this blog post is an article about the suit on The author seems to think this case could have major consequences on the law of “twibel” (libel on Twitter - -I didn’t make up that term). Poynter is kind of the online Bible for journalists. And I respect those folks tremendously. But I don’t agree that this case is all that earthshaking. The article identifies a number of issues in the case, none of which in my mind are affected by the platform. There is a public figure issue – is Rhonda Holmes a public figure? That matters because a public figure plaintiff has to establish actual malice. That’s a tougher standard than a private figure faces. But a person’s status as a public figure has literally nothing to do with the fact that the defendant made the comment on Twitter.

There’s also an issue in this case about whether Love’s comment was “opinion” and/or “hyperbole.” If so, she’s not liable. Libel has to arise from a false statement of fact. The Supreme Court has said there is no such thing as a false opinion. And a statement that is hyperbole is never intended to be taken literally. But again, the platform is irrelevant to that analysis. The only question is whether Love’s comment that Holmes was “bought off” states a verifiable fact. And just because she said it in a tweet doesn’t change the analysis. 

I’m not suggesting that “twibel” is identical to more traditional libel. For one thing, the nature of Twitter makes it easier to see how many people looked at the tweet. That could impact damages. In the old days, there was no reliable indicator to show exactly how many people actually saw the defamatory publication. But the underlying fundamentals of libel law, in my view apply even in a 140 character universe.      



Connect on Facebook

Get Linkedin with Jack

Follow Me

Federal Trade Commission
Rebecca Tushnet's 43 (B)log
Pittsburgh Trademark Lawyer

Do You Know Jack?

(what's the point of a blog without them)
We'd love to hear what you're thinking. Although we can't guarantee that we'll post every question or comment on our site, please note that when you submit a question or comment we assume we've got your consent to post it on our site. To add a comment on any post, just click on "go comment" immediately below that post.

(you had to see this coming):
This blog is a periodic publication of Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own advisor concerning your situation and any specific legal question you may have. Many states, including Kentucky, require that law firms add the statement "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT" on publications of this nature.

Copyright © 2016 Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP. All Rights Reserved.