COMMUNITY, HARM AND PLAINTIFF STATUS IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET By AMY KRISTIN ...

276 Pages·2007·1.18 MB·English

DEFINING DEFAMATION:
COMMUNITY, HARM AND PLAINTIFF STATUS
IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET

By

AMY KRISTIN SANDERS

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007
1
© 2007 Amy Kristin Sanders
2
To my parents, Raymond and Patricia Sanders
You are my mentors and my best friends. Without your love and support, I could never have
made it this far.
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges the support and assistance of her dissertation co-chairs Dr. Bill
F. Chamberlin and Dr. John W. Wright. She also expresses her sincere gratitude to her
committee members: Dr. Laurence Alexander, Dr. Justin Brown and Professor Lyrissa Lidsky.
Their extreme patience and encouragement made this dissertation possible.
The author is grateful for the support she has received from her family and friends.
Without their intent interest, she would not have had the discipline needed to complete such a
large project in such a short amount of time. A special thanks also goes to Jeff Adelson and
Vicki Ahn, whose patience with the author’s frustrations throughout the process was remarkable.
In addition, the advice and guidance provided by her friends and colleagues Joshua Azriel,
Courtney Barclay and Richard Waters were invaluable during the research and writing process.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10
Purpose...................................................................................................................................16
Literature Review...................................................................................................................17
Defamatory Statement.....................................................................................................19
Reputation in the Community.........................................................................................23
Publication.......................................................................................................................26
Fault.................................................................................................................................28
Defamation Moves into Cyberspace.......................................................................................32
Jurisdiction......................................................................................................................33
Anonymity.......................................................................................................................35
ISP Immunity Under the Communications Decency Act................................................38
Community......................................................................................................................44
Plaintiff Status.................................................................................................................45
Research Questions.................................................................................................................46
Methodology...........................................................................................................................47
Secondary Sources...........................................................................................................48
Primary Sources...............................................................................................................49
Dissertation Outline................................................................................................................50
2 THE INTERNET AS A MEDIUM OF MASS COMMUNICATION..................................52
History of the Internet.............................................................................................................53
Early Computer Networks...............................................................................................53
ARPANET.......................................................................................................................55
The Internet Goes Public.................................................................................................57
Benefits of the Internet...........................................................................................................59
Consequences of the Internet..................................................................................................62
Anonymity Issues............................................................................................................63
A right to speak anonymously?................................................................................63
Anonymous speech online.......................................................................................65
The Communications Decency Act.................................................................................69
The CDA and ISP Immunity...........................................................................................71
Jurisdictional Issues.........................................................................................................82
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................87
5
3 THE INTERNET AND FIRST AMENDMENT THEORY..................................................90
The Marketplace of Ideas from Milton to Modern Day.........................................................91
John Milton......................................................................................................................91
John Stuart Mill...............................................................................................................93
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.......................................................................................94
The Making of an American Marketplace..............................................................................97
Criticisms of the Marketplace Metaphor.......................................................................100
The Court implements a right of access.................................................................103
Returning to recipient-based marketplace models.................................................104
Malaise with the Marketplace...............................................................................................107
The Modern American Market: Rehnquist’s Legacy....................................................110
Recognition of the Internet in the Marketplace.............................................................115
The Internet and Other First Amendment Theories..............................................................115
Alexander Meiklejohn and Self-Governance................................................................116
The Supreme Court and Self-Governance.....................................................................117
Vincent Blasi and the Checking Value..........................................................................124
The Supreme Court and the Checking Value................................................................126
Thomas Emerson’s Self-Fulfillment Theory.................................................................128
The Supreme Court and Self-Fulfillment......................................................................130
Conclusion............................................................................................................................131
4 DEFINING COMMUNITY.................................................................................................134
The Courts Look at Community: Print and Broadcast Defamation.....................................134
U.S. Supreme Court.......................................................................................................135
Federal Appellate Courts...............................................................................................139
Federal Trial Courts.......................................................................................................147
State Court Cases...........................................................................................................151
The Courts Look at Community: Online Defamation..........................................................159
Conclusion............................................................................................................................163
Geographic Area of Publication....................................................................................164
Site of Plaintiff Residence.............................................................................................164
Specialized or Professional Community.......................................................................164
Mixed Methods..............................................................................................................165
5 DEFINING PLAINTIFF STATUS......................................................................................166
The Courts Look at Plaintiff Status: Print and Broadcast Defamation.................................166
U.S. Supreme Court.......................................................................................................166
New York Times v. Sullivan: Public officials and actual malice............................167
Curtis Publishing v. Butts: A standard for public figures......................................170
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia and Gertz v. Welch: The standard for private
persons................................................................................................................173
The Lower Courts and Plaintiff Status..........................................................................179
Public officials........................................................................................................180
6
Public figures..........................................................................................................187
Private persons.......................................................................................................198
The Courts Look at Plaintiff Status: Online Defamation.....................................................201
Conclusion............................................................................................................................208
6 DEFINING HARM..............................................................................................................212
The Courts Look At Harm: Print and Broadcast Defamation..............................................212
Common Law Damage Requirements...........................................................................213
Injury to business reputation..................................................................................215
Injury to personal reputation..................................................................................216
Pecuniary injury.....................................................................................................217
Constitutional Damage Requirements...........................................................................218
The Courts Look at Harm: Online Defamation....................................................................220
Conclusion............................................................................................................................224
7 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................226
Research Questions...............................................................................................................227
What Are the Significant Issues for Online Defamation that Have Not Been
Adequately Addressed in the Scholarly Literature?..................................................227
How Do the Courts Define the Notions of Community, Harm and Plaintiff Status in
Defamation Cases that Do Not Involve Online Defamation?....................................228
Community.............................................................................................................228
Plaintiff status.........................................................................................................231
Harm.......................................................................................................................237
How Do Courts Define the Notions of Community, Harm and Plaintiff Status in
Online Defamation Cases?.........................................................................................240
Community.............................................................................................................240
Plaintiff status.........................................................................................................243
Harm.......................................................................................................................244
What Considerations Are Important When Courts Try to Define the Notions of
Community, Harm and Plaintiff Status in Online Defamation Cases?......................246
Community: Geographic reach of the Internet.......................................................247
Plaintiff status: Ease of access to the Internet........................................................250
What First Amendment Theories Are Important When Courts Try to Define the
Notions of Community, Harm and Plaintiff Status in Online Defamation Cases?....253
Marketplace of ideas..............................................................................................253
Self-governance, checking value and self-fulfillment............................................257
Future Research....................................................................................................................258
Conclusion............................................................................................................................260
LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................262
Primary Sources....................................................................................................................262
Cases..............................................................................................................................262
Federal Statutes.............................................................................................................269
7
State Statutes.................................................................................................................270
Secondary Sources................................................................................................................270
Books.............................................................................................................................270
Journal and Magazine Articles......................................................................................271
Newspaper Articles.......................................................................................................274
Plays..............................................................................................................................274
Reports...........................................................................................................................274
Restatements of the Law...............................................................................................274
Web sites.......................................................................................................................275
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................276
8
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
DEFINING DEFAMATION:
COMMUNITY, HARM AND PLAINTIFF STATUS
IN THE AGE OF THE INTERNET
By
Amy Kristin Sanders
December 2007
Chair: Bill F. Chamberlin
Cochair: John Wright
Major: Mass Communication
By examining court cases in both federal and state courts throughout the United States, this
study looks at how the courts are defining three components of defamation actions: community,
harm and plaintiff status. This study examines defamation cases that have arisen both before and
after the Internet became a popular medium of mass communication. For the most part, it
appears courts are using the rules they crafted in cases before the Internet, with some
modification, in the cases that have arisen during the Internet Age. In defining community and
plaintiff status, some courts have begun to recognize the unique characteristics of the Internet –
its appeal to the masses and global reach – which may provide the justification needed to craft
rules specifically tailored for Internet defamation cases. Such advances have not been made in
the area of harm, where the courts continue to apply the common law rules and constitutional
mandates used in traditional print and broadcast defamation cases.
9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A man’s interest in his own reputation is likely one of the things he holds dearest, for his
reputation colors all aspects of his life, including personal and professional relationships and
transactions. Thus, the way society perceives a man may be more important than the way in
which the man perceives himself. If, as it has been said, a man’s word is his bond, then his
reputation for truth, integrity, virtue and the like are of paramount importance. Theoretically,
perhaps, as long as a man leads an upstanding and honorable life, his reputation should remain
above reproach. The difficulty of reputation lies in its point of origin: Reputation is not only
how a man lives his life, but it is also how others endeavor to characterize his actions.1 Thus,
society has developed a system for protecting reputational interests from the harms inflicted by
others’ characterizations. The tort of defamation attempts to do just that by protecting a man
from the utterance of false factual assertions that would besmirch his reputation within his
community.2
In the early days of the tort, ascertaining a man’s community might have been as simple as
discerning the members of his village or town. However, as society has become more
technologically advanced and interconnected, a man’s community may no longer consist only of
those who reside within shouting distance. As mass communication and rapid transportation
have developed, a man’s community may instead consist of family in distant lands or business

1 Legal scholar David Anderson has noted that defamation law attempts to protect four types of reputational
interests: a person’s existing relationships with others, a man’s future relations with others, a person’s existing
reputation among the general public and a person’s right to prevent a negative public image should that person not
have one already. See David Anderson, Reputation, Compensation & Proof, 25 WM. & MARY L. REV. 747, 764-66
(1984).
2 “Defamation is an impairment of relational interest; it denigrates the opinion which others in the community have
of the plaintiff and invades the plaintiff’s interest in his reputation and good name.” Keisau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d
164, 175 (Iowa 2004).
10