Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Chicagoan sued for defamation based on tweet
- Thread starter mkrishnan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd like to see how this plays out. A good point was brought up about what a "tweet" is anyway and can it be considered a conversation among friends in a public "room" or is it publishing? If the latter then the suit sticks but then where does it end? Can I not come here and express my utter dissatisfaction with the Honda dealer that took forever to change the oil on my car?
This should probably be the first and will probably become case law at the very least I think.
This should probably be the first and will probably become case law at the very least I think.
Yeah, if it goes to trial I think it has the potential to be really useful in terms of precedent. Maybe ACLU or EFF or someone will pick it up. Also I wonder if there are a lot of juicy details not publicly available -- particularly whether there's some compelling evidence that the allegation by this tenant was false or otherwise deceptive.
Seems like publishing to me. I mean, unless she can and does limit who can follow her tweets (I don't use twitter so I don't know these things).
But remember, the bar for proving defamation is still enormously high. Even assuming that posting to MR counts as "publication," for your Honda dealer to sue you, they'd have to prove that your post was false, that you knew it to be false, and that it harmed the dealer in some way (probably reputation).
Remember - truth is always a defense to a charge of defamation. If the honda dealer in fact took forever to change your oil then you can scream it from the rooftops and even if that ruins their entire business you're fine.
And then we get in to whether a commentary on a dealership is a "matter of public interest" or the dealership itself is a "public figure." I'm not sure how that would play with respect to a corporation, but my guess is you'd be covered under "matter of public concern" even if all of the elements above were met.
This is why I'm surprised the property management firm would press the lawsuit, especially for such a small amount of money.
Only 20 people got the tweet; that's worldwide?
Small world.I, for one, support Ms Bonnen's right to express her disatisfaction with any company. If she loses this suit, we should all be wary of what we post on ANY internet forum.
I don't want M$ coming after me for saying Windows stinks.
Publication involves the publication of the defamatory statement to one recipient. The number of recipients only has to do with the amount of damages. One or a million, if the statement is defamatory, it is actionable.
While i believe the management company is behaving like a spoiled child (e.g. this stupid gal's opinions got world wide attention vs. a few of her friends had this debacle not been pursued), the lesson is the same, mind your Ps and Qs out there folks. There is nothing magic about the web that makes it a free for all. Defame other folks at your own peril.
While i believe the management company is behaving like a spoiled child (e.g. this stupid gal's opinions got world wide attention vs. a few of her friends had this debacle not been pursued), the lesson is the same, mind your Ps and Qs out there folks. There is nothing magic about the web that makes it a free for all. Defame other folks at your own peril.
Only 20 people got the tweet; that's worldwide?
Also, if it's like most Twitter accounts it's open to the public. Not only could anyone searching for related keywords find it, but in some Twitter apps (e.g. Twinkle), there's a popular feature to see all the twitter activity in a defined radius around your current location -- and people use it, so it would go out to all of the Chicagoans on Twitter.
I, for one, support Ms Bonnen's right to express her disatisfaction with any company. If she loses this suit, we should all be wary of what we post on ANY internet forum.
As far as defamation goes, what Bonnen said is different from what you said -- your statement is purely a value judgment. I might agree or disagree, but no one can prove it's false. If you posted that Microsoft diverts money from its advertising revenues to Lashkar-e-Taiba or that Windows 7 permanently modifies your computer to prevent you from installing Linux on it, then... those kinds of claims would be categorically different fro "Windows stinks." And wouldn't most people agree that those claims are irresponsible?
Again, I'm really surprised there's a suit, but if the mgmt company can make good on their claim and this is provably false, she's inciting panic in other people who live in properties owned by that agency. They probably have already started panicking in what might be purely cases where there is no risk. Even if usually minor, that panic is actually physically bad for them. From that standpoint, if this kind of allegation more particularly is known false by this Bonnen person, then what she did has at least a small aspect of pulling a fire alarm in a theater when there is no fire (which is enough more serious to be a crime).
I have seen property agencies on Twitter, but my first guess would be, a la my above scenario, someone else already panicked and called them saying they found out on Twitter that they have mold in their apartment....
In fairness to hmmm, I don't know who or which, apparently there is more:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chi...-lawsuit-against-horizon-realty-revealed.html
Both the property group's press release and the woman's preious complaint are available via link as PDF.
The Horizon claim includes a print-out copy of the Twitter account showing the tweet in question and indicates that the account was public (per my above note) at the time of posting, but doesn't elaborate on how the claim is known to be false.
The Bonnen suit seems to have to deal with payment of interest on security deposit (renters there are required to place security deposits in interest bearing accounts and accrue interest on behalf of the tennant) and also porch safety disclosures, so if the Horizon suit is retaliatory, it doesn't seem related topically to the original suit.
This was on cnn a few weeks ago. Most people would agree that she was speaking to a small audience.
It's just silly because now no one would want to live there, because that landlord might sue the tenants for silly things. What's next? The landlord will tap the phones?
There are lots of people who low IQ, MAYBE some work at that place. And I said Maybe.
It's just silly because now no one would want to live there, because that landlord might sue the tenants for silly things. What's next? The landlord will tap the phones?
There are lots of people who low IQ, MAYBE some work at that place. And I said Maybe.
I'm confused as to where the defamation occurred. Her tweet was as follows:
Where is the defamation? That she is claiming the apartment is moldy? If anything she appears to be (sarcastically) agreeing with Horizon.
Seems like "Windows stinks!" tweet would be more defamatory than this one getting this poor gal sued.
Where is the defamation? That she is claiming the apartment is moldy? If anything she appears to be (sarcastically) agreeing with Horizon.
Seems like "Windows stinks!" tweet would be more defamatory than this one getting this poor gal sued.
After these types of lawsuits, I amended my profile disclaimer on MacRumors years ago.
Warning: It's all an opinion based on my own twisted version of reality.
I'm not stating facts, just my opinion. Which may differ from the truth.
If they decide to sue me over my opinions, all they are doing is helping prove to me they are asshats.
Warning: It's all an opinion based on my own twisted version of reality.
I'm not stating facts, just my opinion. Which may differ from the truth.
If they decide to sue me over my opinions, all they are doing is helping prove to me they are asshats.
The ironic thing is the company is getting far worse publicity from the frivolous suit than anything someone could say on Twitter.
This is sort of off-topic. But I am nonetheless interested:
Have Corporations always had all the rights of an individual person? (I.E are considered an identity, citizen and can litigate against individuals using laws intended to protect individual citizens?)
Has this always been the case? This may be the case in most countries, but I know in most other countries - there are legal limits to Corporations going after individuals.
Hmm, curious.
Have Corporations always had all the rights of an individual person? (I.E are considered an identity, citizen and can litigate against individuals using laws intended to protect individual citizens?)
Has this always been the case? This may be the case in most countries, but I know in most other countries - there are legal limits to Corporations going after individuals.
Hmm, curious.
Doesn't seem to have resurfaced in the news aside from tangential mentions to the previous information... here's another interesting, case, loosely related, though:
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/219400684;jsessionid=Q5FYVREJCEQZ1QE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN
Here the issue seems to be more whether the person has a claim to anonymity -- it seems really unlikely this model, whoever she is, could get damages for being called a ho on the internet... (or else Paris Hilton is probably capable of suing for trillions of dollars from roflrazzi pics alone. )
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/219400684;jsessionid=Q5FYVREJCEQZ1QE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN
Here the issue seems to be more whether the person has a claim to anonymity -- it seems really unlikely this model, whoever she is, could get damages for being called a ho on the internet... (or else Paris Hilton is probably capable of suing for trillions of dollars from roflrazzi pics alone.
)
(or else Paris Hilton is probably capable of suing for trillions of dollars from roflrazzi pics alone.
No she isn't. It's not defamation if it's true.
I'm confused as to where the defamation occurred. Her tweet was as follows:
Where is the defamation? That she is claiming the apartment is moldy? If anything she appears to be (sarcastically) agreeing with Horizon.
Seems like "Windows stinks!" tweet would be more defamatory than this one getting this poor gal sued.
If the statement is presented as a fact and is actually false and the company suffered some injury (I don't believe it even has to be economic harm) because of that false statement then it is defamation. I think its pretty clear that she made a statement of fact, essentially: my apartment has mold, I sleep in it, and Horizon Realty thinks it is ok. If, in fact, her apartment did not have mold in it then the company might be able to prove libel. You also have to remember that publishing in a legal sense isn't really the same as in a general sense; all publishing in a legal sense means is that the statement of defamation is communicated to persons other than the defamed party.
"Windows stinks" isn't a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion that is protected under the First Amendment; statements of false fact that cause injury are not protected under the First Amendment.
This article that talks about the Liskula Cohen case also goes a little into how the line between opinion and fact is drawn...
Corporations don't have all the rights of individuals, but they do have a good number of them. First example that comes to mind - a corporation has no 2nd amendmnet rights.
Not to mention that she's a public figure, so she'd have to prove "actual malice" in addition to everything else.