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