CURRENT ISSUE
The issue regarding actor James Woods, currently suing an anonymous Twitter user for $10 million, still stands questionable as we wonder why Woods would take this situation to such extremes. As the lawsuit can go in either direction, we all can agree that nobody wants to be talked badly about. Of course, there are always two sides to every story, and public figures get more ridicule than they probably deserve; however, the question stands: is this case of libel worth pursuing?
As a United States citizen, we are all guaranteed the right to our freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. Although it seems vicious, even Twitter user, “Abe List,” has the right to express their opinions about Woods being an alleged “cocaine addict” during a campaign. But, was this anonymous person just expressing a pointless thought at that moment in time towards their personal dislike to Woods, or were they literally accusing Woods of being addicted to drugs? In a situation regarding a social network like this, the answer is unclear. Although these comments are very immature, they can still be legally considered as cyber-bullying, and with proven intent of malice, can be punishable by law.
However, James Woods is a public figure in society, and one that has come with his fair share of public and professional ridicule. He should naturally expect that some people are fans of his, while others are not. Not everyone is going to support a person just because they are a known actor, and those fortunate enough to deal with the silver screened limelight should expect these issues to occur throughout their careers. Not every celebrity will be “liked,” whether there’s a specific reason for it or not, but where do we draw the line when it comes to libel? Should a website be held responsible for an anonymous users published text, or should do they have the right to protect their users?
Social media is made for those people who wish to share their lives and opinions publicly online. It’s a choice each person makes when they agree to the terms and conditions, and it’s become a staple in our everyday lives. Twitter was created for people to tweet their thoughts and opinions, preferably responsibly and respectfully, about anything they would like to share with the rest of the world, and with that being, some tweets are naturally written more maturely than others. There is no controlling what one might share on a social network, unless it’s explicit content that will naturally be deleted by the network’s moderators, so it remains important that a person uses a social network responsibly. As Twitter took actions to suspended “Abe List’s” account, we still don’t agree that Woods should have taken the situation as far as it went.
LEGAL ISSUE
There are two main types of defamation, which is libel or slander. When a potentially defamatory statement is posted online or though social media, it is considered libel, as it was written text. Slander refers to spoken defamation, but would not apply to our specific case here. However, the law only considers these occurrences punishable by law if it comes with intended malice or damages ones livelihood.
One reason you might want to sue the internet service provider, or ISP, is if the particular web site has “deep pockets,” meaning they the have money to pay out for such cases. However, courts often won’t consider proceedings until a fair share of substantial evidence can be provided in which proven defamation can be noted or recognized. Also, there is a statute of limitations that exists for online content. Most statutes last for a period of 12 months, and it starts the day the first comment is posted.
Although current laws vary state-by-state, California has accepted anonymous speech and further decided it is very much legally protected under the 1st Amendment. California is believed to hold privacy and free speech within the same regards, and greatly consider the rights of the texts’ author. Again, any questionable anonymous speech must be proven to have intended malice within it’s contents and cause actual damage to one’s livelihood to be punishable by the courts of law.
Whether discussing the case of Mark and Rhonda Lesher or Thomas Cooley, these cases are actually quite common. The Leshers were awarded $13.78 Million for mental anguish, while the Cooley case is undergoing an appeal after winning their case. Both of these appeals, although not occurring in California, had to undergo extensive systematic credibility before being considered to move forward. Although, both were also able to prove defamation charges due to the libel printed about them. As other similar cases didn’t have substantial evidence to present to court, their cases were immediately denied.
Looking up Twitter’s rules and regulations to see if anonymous speech is even encouraged in their forums, we’ve found that it is. According to Twitter’s rules and guidelines, one can decide to remain anonymous if they think their privacy will benefit from it. This means, just about anybody concerned about their privacy can make a phony username, and begin posting Tweets immediately using their forums. Basically, you won’t have to use a real name, but you will still be published and backed by Twitter incorporated.
In the case of Woods accusations, the court can try to subpoena a user’s real information; that is, if they have actually supplied real information such as names or email addresses. In the guideline rules, such things as user id’s and photos are not required, but can be provided when or if possible. As defendants can try to quash the subpoena, which means trying to challenge or deny any allegations, the responsibility also falls on the website to decide to co-operate with the courts in revealing their user’s identities or not.
When and if an anonymous user gets subpoenaed to court, they are asked to come as a witness rather than a defendant to undergo a four part test. Part one is if the subpoena was issued in good faith, meaning the claims aren’t phony and the parties are being responsive. Second, is if the information sought after relates to the defense, proving it was actually them that posted such claims. They have to make sure the information is accurate and relevant in the third step. And finally, information to confirm or deny the claim must not be available from other sources.
TEAM REFLECTIONS
First and foremost, we’ve learned and have been reaffirmed that the First Amendment was created to give us citizens a voice. And with that, we have to wonder if it’s acceptable to be punished for our freedoms of speech, whether through expressions on an online format or even just expressing random tangents of self-entitled hate. Through the course of this class and this with the expanded help of this assignment, we were finally able to understand what the First Amendment was truly all about.
We also learned the outcomes of suing for libel, and the meaning of defamation. As with the case between James Woods and anonymous Twitter user, “Abe List,” this case has taught us what it takes for courts to truly apprehend and uphold our freedoms under the First Amendment. The way this issue was handled was at first very complicated for us to understand, as we believed that Woods overreacted to the anonymous Twitter account’s immature posts about him; because, being a public figure, one would think that Woods would already come to expect both positive and negative feedback. “Abe List” cannot possibly be the only person who dislikes Woods, so him being sued personally seemed unfair.
However, we also learned through this assignment that social media can be very dangerous. We, as social butterflies, should always be cautious when agreeing to the terms and conditions when joining any social network. It is our own responsibilities to decide if we are mature enough to handle our own accounts on social media and being respectful while engaging in binge postings, as even the simplest posts can lead up to dangerous events.
Foremost, we’ve learned that anonymous speech laws are indeed protected, although vary state-by-state, and that these cases are actually quite common. As long as people continue to choose to Tweet, SnapChat, Vine, or update their personal pages at will, the 1st Amendment will continue to be challenged.
Team #1; Anonymous Speech 