Defamation

Defaming an individual and or organization could be increasingly harmful for your own business. When starting up a brand new social networking site, one must be aware of how to protect their users from any harmful posts. The website should strive to protect its users from damaging or falsely posted information. Defamation is the “act of making untrue statements about another which would damage his/her reputation” (n.d LAW.Com). Today, there are many platforms in which one can be defamed and or slandered. No longer is the defamation of an individual possible only verbally and or on paper. The Internet and modern technologies have granted various ways to potentially harm an individual or damage his/her reputation. The Internet's ability to reach many around the world instantly can allow for the dissemination of a defaming message within minutes. Social networking sites are a great way of connecting with many others, but the ability to connect and communicate with so many in one place could potentially be a welcoming environment for offensive and hurtful behavior. When starting a social networking site, the owner must be knowledgeable of potential risks for users that will join. Applying strict rules and guidelines to new users upon registration should be implemented in order to reduce potential risks of defamation. Strict rules upon registration will allow users to understand the boundaries of online behavior, while understanding acceptable and unacceptable actions. Within a social networking site, users may post derogatory terms and or false claims towards another individual or even against a corporation. In 2008, a case was brought to the New York courts claiming that the defendant Jenna Glatzer had published defamatory statements about the defendant Barbara Bauer. The plaintiff had claimed that the lewd statements made by the defendant were false and malicious, stating that the defendant “had an intent to ruin [the plaintiffs] career” (Bauer v. Glatzer, 2008). Within this case, Glatzer had published false information about Bauer, stating that the plaintiff was a thief, thus tarnishing Bauer’s reputation as a business woman and also tarnishing the reputation of the corporation of which Bauer was an employee. Within this case, Glatzer had made false claims about an individual, claims that will continually affect this person over time. Bauer was inevitably affected by these false claims as they diminished her reputation with potential clients and peers as well. Within the proposed creation of a social networking site, the creator must be conscious of the ability for potential users to use this platform as a way to defame others. Prevention measures could be taken to avoid any potential cases of defamation. When allowing users to modify or change other’s personal information, the users must be aware of the risks they are taking by the possibility of defaming another user and be knowledgeable of the possible implications of such actions. Outlining the risks of editing personal pages of others will reduce liability of the creator and also make the originator of the defamation aware of the implications. The social networking site and potential competitor, //Faceboo//k, had taken measures into their own hands when they learned of group defaming a Nova Scotia University. This online //Facebook// group had claimed that a university had used dogs to conduct experiments and tests on campus (Canadian Privacy Blog, 2007). Over 13,000 users joined this group, thinking the claims were fact, when in reality it was a false claim by one which had a profound effect on many. This claim harmed the reputation of Dalhousie University as this message had instantly spread around the world. Several tactics of prevention could be made by the creators and providers of the social networking site. Within the early stages of the social networking site, an administrator may be assigned to moderate any actions on the site, maintaining peace. Also, as previously mentioned, a policy may be created to educate users that certain behaviors will not be tolerated and if pursued, will result in the banning and deactivation of the account in question. Upon reviewing the guidelines of the policy, users must accept responsibility for their actions, diminishing any legal responsibility on the part of the social networking site. Section 230 of the //Communications Decency Act// of 1996 provides protection to providers and users of an interactive computing service, such as a social networking site. The act outlines that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C § 230). This act offers the provider of the site some protection from the actions of their users and possibly prevents any lawsuits against some defamatory cases. Although responsibility should be claimed by the originator of the defamation, the service provider should outline, emphasize and take action against such behavior. The Seigenthaler incident, which occurred in early May of 2005, outlined a clear case of defamation against of ones character. John Seigenthaler, a journalist was defamed on a widely used website, //Wikipedia//. A page was created for Seigenthaler claiming several false comments. These comments insisted that Seigenthaler had a rolenin the assassinations of both former President John. F. Kennedy and Brother Robert Kennedy (Unknown, 2005). These edits had gone undetected and remained on the Wikipedia page for nearly five months before they were re-edited and removed. By then the damage was already done as people began associating this with the truth and re-stating these fallacies. Similar to the Dalhousie case, a complaint was made by Seigenthaler to the //Wikipedia// providers which resulted in drastic changes to the //Wikipedia// service. These changes included limiting creation of new pages to registered users only, rather than having the public create and delete pages freely. This case affected section 230 of the //Communications Decency Act// as Seigenthaler criticized the notion of not holding providers of the Website accountable for defamatory cases. Several have called for a revision of section 230, urging Congress to revise the act to hold providers responsible(Unknown, 2005). When entering different countries with a new service one must be aware of different laws and abide by the provided rules. Within the Canadian market, the Canadian defamation laws slightly differ from those of the United States and providers of the social networking site should be aware of the differences in both bodies of legislation. The //Canadian Defamation Law//, unlike the //U.S. Act// does not require the plaintiff to prove that defendant intended to defame another. Within the Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto case, the plaintiff, Casey Hill accused the Church of Scientology of defamation of character when a member of the Church had claimed that Hill had “mislead a Judge in the supreme court and had breached orders of sealing a certain documents belonging to the church of scientology” (Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto 1995). The //Canadian Defamation Law// takes into account freedom of expression however, the supreme court states that the law is not to be revised, but interpreted ( Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto 1995). These false statements were spoken in front of many at a rally were proven to be untrue and the church was fined and charged with defamation of Casey Hill. When applying the //Canadian Defamation Law// to an up and coming social networking site, one must be cautious and aware of the differences between each country. The Canadian law, like the //U.S. Act// is based on the //English Defamation Act//. The modern //English Defamation Act// allows any published piece of defamation to be brought to the high courts (Nicholson, n.d). In 1994, McDonalds filed suit against Helen Steel and David Morris, who were members of Greenpeace. Steel and Morris were part of a group handing out pamphlets entitled “Whats wrong with McDonalds?” When McDonalds threatened to sue, several members of the group formally apologized to the large corporation avoiding defamatory cases against them (Nicholson, n.d). When Steel and Morris refused to apologize, McDonald’s followed through with a lawsuit stating that the defendants were tarnishing the brand with lies. The case lasted three years and ended with McDonald’s winning the case and granted $96, 000. Although McDonald’s had spent much more money defending themselves against these claims, “the president of McDonald’s U.K. testified that this was not about money—it was about preventing lies being used to try to ‘smash’ the company” (Nicholson, n.d) Although the case had been settled, the effects of Steel and Morris impacted and hurt McDonald’s on a larger scale. With the expansion and adaptation of the Internet, a website had been created against McDonald’s with emphasis on Steel and Morris’ pamphlet. The Internet has taken a defamatory case such as the McDonald’s one and emphasized it on a large scale for many to see as well as making it permanent online. When beginning a new venture, such as creating a social networking site, the provider must be able to control and or understand that any information posted on the site may be copied and multiplied on many different sites-damaging ones reputation beyond the borders of the social networking site, as a CBC analyst states “It’s more difficult to keep reputations in tact on the Internet,” because information is so easily copied and transferred (Canadian Privacy Blog 2007). To fully alleviate the risk of a defamatory case against a service provider, the provider must make clear the rules and regulations prior to registering to the site, making sure that all potential users agree to the outlined terms and relieving the site of all risks, including but not confined to defamation. --WORKS CITED-

Barbara Bauer & Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc v. Jenna Glatzer & AbsoluteWrite.com: Superior Court of New Jersey (2008) [[]] (Accessed On: April 9th, 2009) Canadian Privacy Blog (2007) More on Facebook and defamation [[]] (Accessed On: April 9th, 2009) Hill //v.// Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) 2 S.C.R. 1130 [ []] (Accessed on April 9th, 2009) Nicholson A, Marlene (n.d)  MCLIBEL: A CASE STUDY IN ENGLISH DEFAMATION LAW [ []] Unknown Author  (2005) Seigenthaler and Wikipedia A Case Study on the Veracity of the "Wiki" concept [ [] ] (Accessed on April 9th, 2009) (n.d) Dictionary.law.com [[]] (Accessed on: April 9th, 2009) 47 U.S.C § 230 (2006) Communications Decency Act (Accessed on: April 10th, 2009)