gertz and internet

8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet

1/33

The Gertz Doctrine and Internet Defamation

Author(s): Michael HadleySource: Virginia Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Apr., 1998), pp. 477-508Published by: Virginia Law ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073670.

Accessed: 12/06/2014 11:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Virginia Law Reviewis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Virginia Law

Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:18:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vlrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1073670?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1073670?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vlr


2/33

NOTE

THE GERTZ DOCTRINE AND INTERNET

DEFAMATION

Michael

Hadley

INTRODUCTION

With herecent

xplosion

n

quantity

nd

variety

f

peech

n

the-nter-

net,

awyers

nd

udgesfacenovel nd

difficult

egalquestions.'

Because of

the

nternet's

nique

ommunicative

bilities,2

indingays

o

graft

efama-

tionprinciplesntocyberspaces a significantroblem.Under raditional

defamation

aw, private

arty,

n

order

o establish

iability,

enerally

ust

prove

hat

he

defendant

cted

negligently

n

making

damaging

nd

false

statement.f

the

defamed

arty

s a

"public

igure,"

owever,

he

mustmeet

the

higher

tandard

stablishedy

the

Supreme

ourt n

NewYork

Times .

Sullivan3-proving

hat

hedefendant

ctedwith

ctual

malice

n

making he

statements.4

eetinghis

igher

tandards

almost

mpossible.5

A

growing umber

f

commentatorsave

recentlyrgued hat

nyparty

who

participates

nthe

nternethould

e

considered

"public igure"

or

purposes f determininghe appropriatetandard f liability.6 hus,a

*

J.D.

Candidate

1999,

University

f

Virginia

chool of Law.

The

authorwould ike

to

thank

rofessor

obert

O'Neil and

ProfessorMichael

Klarman,

oth

of the

University

f

Virginia,

or heir

elp n

preparing

his

Note.

I

For

example,

here s

the

problem

f

determining

ersonal

urisdictionn the

nternet,

see

David L.

Stott,

Comment,

ersonal

Jurisdiction

n

Cyberspace:

he

Constitutional

Boundary

f

Minimum

ontacts

Limited o a

Web

Site,

15

J.

Marshall

J.

Computer

Info.

L.

819

(1997),

and

the

question f

whether

he nternet

onstitutes

nterstate

om-

merce

nd is thus

utside he

rangeof state

regulation,ee

American

ibrariesAssoc. v.Pataki, 69F. Supp.160 S.D.N.Y. 1997).

2

As

used

n

this

Note,

he

"Internet"

efers

o

thevarious

nterconnected

etworkshat

make

available

communication

rograms

ike

electronic

mail, ee

infra

note

97,

usenet

newsgroups,ee

infra

ote

100, the

World

Wide

Web,

see

infra

ote

102,

exploding

mail

servers,ee

infra

ote

101,file

ransfer

rotocol

"ftp"), ee

infra

ote

98,

and

gopher,ee

infra

ote99. This

is

not an

exhaustive

ist, ut

t

captures

most f

the

trafficn

the n-

formation

uperhighway.

n

excellent

ynopsis f each

of these

programss

contained n

the

districtourt's

indings f

fact

n

ACLU v.

Reno,

929

F.

Supp.

824

(E.D.

Pa.

1996),

aff'd, 17

S.

Ct.

2329

1997).

3376

U.S. 254

1964).

4"Actual

malice" n

the

defamation

ense

means

that

he

defendant

ad

knowledge f

the

tatement'salsityracted nreckless isregardf tsfalsity. ee id.at280.1See infra ote182.

6

See

Jeremytone

Weber,

Note,

Defining

yberlibel:

First

Amendment

imit

for

477

This content downloaded from 150.108.161.71 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:18:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/33

478

Virginia

aw Review

[Vol.

84:477

"private"

arty laintiff

efamed

n

a print

ewspaperrticlewouldhave to

prove

negligenceo recover, ut he amestatement

ade n

the

ontext f

Internet iscussion ouldboost thestandard o NewYorkTimes's ctual

malice.

Two arguments

ave beenadvanced o

ustifyuch n incongruous

result.

First,ome ommentatorsave

argued

hat

hetwo

ustifications

or

distinguishingublic

nd

private igures

rofferedy

the

United tates u-

preme ourt

n

Gertz . RobertWelch,

nc.7-access

tothemedia

o respond

to false

harges nd voluntarynterjectionnto

public ontroversy-fito

well nto

yberspacehat

ll defamationhat ccurs

n the nternethould e

subject

o the

NewYorkTimes

ctualmalice tandard.8

or

simplicity,

his

s

referredo

in

thisNote as

the

"Gertz-Internet"

rgument.

econd,

ther

commentatorsavesuggestedhattheso-called right freply" tatutes,

struck own s

unconstitutionalor rint

mediaby

theCourt nMiamiHer-

ald

Publishing o.

v.

Tornillo,9

couldbe usedon the

nternets a

"self-help"

remedy,

hus liminatingheneed for

legal

remedy.10hiswillbe labeled

the

right

f

reply" rgumentere.

Defamation

n

the

nternet asbegun oattract

n increasing

mount f

legal

cholarship." hepublic/private

istinctionor efamation

uits s ap-

Libel

SuitsAgainst

ndividuals

Arising

rom

Computer

ulletin

Board

Speech,

46

Case

W.Res. L.

Rev.

235

1995);

see

also

Mike

Godwin,

he

First

Amendmentn

Cyberspace,

4 Temp.Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 1,7-9 1994); TamarLewin, fFlamesSinge,Whois to

Blame?,N.Y.

Times,

Sept.

25, 1994,?

4,

at 3

(quoting

Mike

Godwinon

public

figures).

See

generally homas

D.

Brooks,Note,

CatchingJellyfish

n

the

nternet: he

Public-

FigureDoctrine

nd Defamation

n

Computer ulletin

Boards,

21

Rutgers

omputer

Tech. L.J.

461,

473-90

analyzing

whether

rivate

ersonswould be

likely

o

qualify

s

"public

figures" n

computer

ulletin

oards undercurrent

efamation

urisprudence);

James

.

Stewart

Laurie J.

Michelson,

yberspace

efamation,

5

Mich.B.J.

510,

512

(1996)

(noting

hat he

question f

who

s a

public

igure

n the

nternet or he

purposes

of

defamations an

open

one). Weber's Note most

fully

evelops

his

rgument,

o

most

of this

Note's

discussion,

nfra art

I, flows romts

nalysis.

7

418

U.S. 323

1974),

discussed

more ullynfra

ection

.D.

8

See

Godwin,

upra

note

6,

at

7-9;

Weber, upra

note 6.

This

argument

s

discussed

more ullynPart I, infra.

9

418

U.S. 241

1974).

l'

See Anne

Wells

Branscomb,

nonymity,

utonomy,nd

Accountability:

hallenges

to the

First

Amendmentn

Cyberspaces, 04

Yale L.J.

1639,

1671-72

1995);

David

R.

Johnson David

Post,

Law

and

Borders-The Rise

of Law in

Cyberspace,

8 Stan.

L.

Rev.

1367, 381-82

1996);

Jeffrey

aylor,

iability f

Usenet

Moderators

or

Defamation

Published y

Others:

Flinging he

Law of

Defamation

nto

Cyberspace,

7 Fla. L.

Rev.

247,

279-80 1995);

Eugene

Volokh,Cheap

Speechand

What t

Will

Do, 104

Yale L.J.

1805, 844

n.126

1995);

Edward

A.

Cavazos,

Note,

Computer

ulletin

oard

Systems

nd

the

Right f

Reply:

Redefining

efamation

iability

or New

Technology, 2

Rev.

Litig.

231

1992).

Since

Cavazos's

Note s the

most

developed

rticulation

fthis

rgument,

his

Note's

discussion,

nfra

ection I.C,

flows

mostlyrom

t.

"1Many ommentators,owever, aveconcentratedn theproblem f

service

rovider

liability-that

s,should

nternet

rovidersike

AmericaOnline

nd

Prodigy

ace

iability

for

defamatory

tatements

ade on their

ervers

r

by their

ubscribers. ee

Matthew .

Siderits,

efamation

n

Cyberspace:

Reconciling

Cubby, nc.

v.

Compuserve,

nc. and

Stratton

akmont,nc.

v.

Prodigy

ervices

o., 79

Marq. L.

Rev.

1065 1996);

DouglasB.




4/33

1998]

The

GertzDoctrine nd nternet

efamation

479

plied o the nternet,owever,as receivedittle ttention,12nd,

n

fact,

o

article

f

any ength

as fleshed ut the obvious

roblems

ith

he

Gertz-

Internet

rgument.13

ThisNote argues hat

rivate arties hould nlyhave to prove hedefa-

mation tandard f

negligence,

hether

hey re

on

the

nternet r

in

the

traditional edia. Part

summarizeshe development

f

defamation

aw,

from

he

common aw

through

he

"constitutionalization"

f

defamationn

New

YorkTimes

nd

its

progeny.

This

ncludes n examinationf

Gertz,

since

understanding

he

Supreme ourt's

istinctionetween ublic nd pri-

vate figuress key to

understandinghe Gertz-Internetrgument

and its

flaws).

Part I

begins

with

brief

escription

f the nternet

nd how

t

s

usedbymost eople. Itthen xaminesndetail he woprongs ftheGertz-

Luftman,

ote, Defamation

iability

or

On-Line Services:

The

Sky

s

Not

Falling,

5

Geo.

Wash.L. Rev. 1071

1997);

Finley

.

Maxson,

Note,

A Potholeon the

nformation

Superhighway:

BS

Operator

iability

or

Defamatory

tatements,

5

Wash.

U.

L.Q.

673

(1997); Paul R.

Niehaus,

Comment,

yberlibel:Workable

Liability

tandards?,

996

U.

Chi.

Legal

F.

617;

Fia F.

Porter,

Note,

Defamatory

peech

on

the

nternet:

Dish"

Best

Served

Chilled?,

1 N.Y.L.

Sch. L.

Rev.

731

1997);

Stewart

Michelson,upra

note

6.

This

discussion

sfueledn

partby two ourt

ecisions hat

eached

pparently

nconsis-

tent results.

Compare

Cubby,

nc. v.

Compuserve,

nc.,

776

F.

Supp. 135,

140-42

(S.D.N.Y.

1991)

finding

ompuserve

as a

distributor

nd not

a

publisher

nd

therefore

holding ompuserve ot iablefor efamatorytatements ade nnewspublicationsub-

lished y a third

arty

nd

made

available

by

Compuserve)

with

tratton

akmont,

nc.

v.

Prodigy ervices

Co.,

No.

31063/94,995 N.Y. Misc.

LEXIS

229,

at

*6-*10

N.Y.

Sup. Ct.

May24,

1995)

finding

rodigy

was a

publisher

s

a

matter

f aw

and

thereforeould be

liable

for

defamation).

Congress

ttemptedo

preempt

he

matter

y

mmunizing

ervice

providers

rom

iability

n

the

Communications

ecency

Act

of

1996. See 47 U.S.C.A.

?

230(c)(1) (West

Supp.

1997) "No provider r

user

f an

interactive

omputer

ervice

hall

be

treated

s the

publisher

r

speaker

f

any nformation

rovided

y

another

nformation

content

rovider.");

ee

also Zeran

v.

America

Online, 58

F.

Supp.

1124

E.D.

Va.),

aff'd,

129

F.3d327

4thCir.

1997) applying

230(c)(1)

and findingt

provides

omplete mmu-

nity

rom

iability or

ervice

roviders).

12

This

maybe

in

part

because the aw

is

beginning

oprohibit

iabilityor

ervicepro-

viders.See supranote11. Most awsuits irected t an individual,s opposed o a serviceproviderikeAmericaOnline,willbe limited ythe bilityfthe

ndividualo

pay.

13

Cf.

Brooks,

upra

note

6,

at

473-90

analyzingwhen

omputer etwork

sers

wouldbe

treated s

publicfigures nder urrent

efamation

urisprudence);

.

Trotter

ardy,

he

ProperLegal

Regime

for

Cyberspace," 5 U.

Pitt.L.

Rev. 993,

998-99

1994).

Hardy

suggests

hat

[s]ome

cyberspace

ssues

eem

wholly

nremarkable:t

is

evident o any

egal eye

that

hey re

readily

overned

ythe

ame

rules

pplicable o other

orms fcom-

munication.

uppose

cyberspace ser

writes

defamatory

essage bout

another

user

nd

ntentionally

ends

t

over

the

nternet

o a

dozen

other

ndividuals.s this

situation

materially ifferent

rom

ending he

same

messageby

fax,

mail, r tele-

graph?

It

ishardto

see how t

could be. The

same

elements-defamatory

ontent,

publicationo third arties, erhaps ctualmalice, nd so on-mustbe determinedinthe

yberspace

ibel

ase as

elsewhere.

Thoseissues

eem

ndistinguishablerom

the

ame

ssues

rising

n a

non-cyberspaceontext.

Id. at

999.

This s

essentially

statement

gainst he

radical

hanges n

the aw

suggested

by

the

Gertz-Internet

rgument,

lthough

ardy

does not

address

hespecific

roblems

with

he

rgument

ddressed n this

Note.




5/33

480

Virginia

aw Review

[Vol.

84:477

Internet

rgument,

emonstratingow hefirst

rong

access

o an

adequate

reply) s based

on

an

oversimplification

f the nternet

nd

how

the

econd

prongdeliberatenterjectionnto public ontroversy)tems rom misun-

derstanding

f the

Court's

anguage

n

Gertz.

Although

t

deals

in

greater

detailwith

he

Gertz-Internet

rgument,art

I

also intimateshat

he

right

of

reply rgument

ails or imilar

easons.Part

II

suggests

everal

easons

why

eeping he

distinctionetween

ublic

nd

private

igures

s even

more

importantnside

yberspacehan utside

t.

This

nalysis

s

based

primarily

n

thefeaturesfthis

ewmedium

hat

istinguish

t from ther

modes f

com-

munication,

articularly

he

raditional edia

f

newspapers,ooks,

nd

broad-

casting. he

Noteconcludes

hat he

First

mendment

oal

of

promoting

he

free xchangef deas shelped, othindered,y llowing rivate ersonso

keepthe

protection

iven

hem n

Gertz

when

hey

enturento

yberspace.

I.

DEFAMATION FROM

COMMON LAW TO

PRESENT

A.

The

Common aw

Defamationn

this

ountry as tsroots n

English

ommon

aw.'4

n

this

side of the

Atlantic,

efore he

Supreme ourt ntered he

defamation

ray,

the

tandard or

ecovery

as strict

iability

n

most

urisdictions."5n

order

to establish

iabilitynder

his

tandard,

heplaintiff

ad to

show

statementmadebythedefendant1) was falseand defamatory,2) concernedhe

plaintiff,nd

(3) caused

either ctual

damages r

other

actionable"

am-

ages.'6Therewas

no

requirement

hat

he

defendant

ad a

particulartate f

mind

nrelation

o the

ruthr

falsityf the

tatement.'7

efamatorytate-

ments ave

been

defineds

thosewhich

re

"injuriouso

the

reputationf

another"

or

which

urt he

plaintiff

in

the

eyes

of a

substantial

nd

re-

spectable

minority"

f

the

community.19

amages

for

defamation

enerally

come n

three

ypes:

pecial,

resumed,

ndpunitive.

pecial

damages,

hich

must

e

established

ythe

plaintiff

ithome

ertainty,20

onsist

f"'the oss

ofsomethingavingconomicrpecuniaryalue'whichmust low irectly

from

he

njury o

reputation

ausedby

the

defamation.

,2'

Becauseof the

problems f

showing

hese

kinds f

losses n

a

defamationction,

where

much

fthe

damage

s

to

unquantifiable

eputation,

he ommon

aw allows

4

Rodney

A.

Smolla, aw

of

Defamation

1.02

1997).

'5

See

LaurenceH.

Eldredge, he

Law

of

Defamation

5,

at

15

1978).

16

Restatement

fTorts

558

1938);

see

Smolla, upranote

14,?

1.03[2].

17

See

Eldredge,upra

note

15, ? 5,

at

15.

18

Romainev. Kallinger, 37 A.2d 284,287 (N.J.1988) (quotingLeers v. Green,131

A.2d

781

N.J.

1957)).

'9

Restatement

Second)

of

Torts

559

cmt.

(1977).

20

See

Matherson .

Marchello,

73

N.Y.S.2d

998

N.Y.

App.

Div.

1984).

21

Matherson,

73

N.Y.S.2d

at

1000

citations

mitted).




6/33

1998]

The

Gertz

Doctrine nd Internet

efamation

481

a plaintiff

o recover

eneral r

"presumed"

amages

nder ertain

ircum-

stances.22inally,

he

plaintiffay e able to

recover

unitive

amages

f

he

defendantctedwith nowledgefthefalsityfthe tatement.23

B. In

ComesJustice rennan

It was

under his rameworkhat

he

upreme

ourt ntered he

picture

n

New

York Times

v. Sullivan.24

The

New York

Times had

accepted and

printed

full-pagedvertisement

igned

y

a

number f

prominent

eople.

The advertisement

ecried outhern

esistanceo

the ivil

ights

ovement,

listedvarious

xamples

f the"wave

of terror"

eing

brought o bear

by

Southern

olice

n

black ollege tudents

ngaged

n

nonviolent

rotests,

nd

askedfor upportn thebattle or ivil ights.26heproblem as that ome

of the

allegations erefalse.27 .B.

Sullivan, t the time

Commissionerf

Public

Affairs or

Montgomery,labama,

ued in

statecircuit

ourt, on-

tendinghat he

reference

o

the

police"referred

o him,

s part f his

ob

entailed

overseeing he

Montgomery

olice Department.28

ullivanwas

awarded

$500,000,

nd the

Supreme

Courtof

Alabama

upheld he

udg-

ment.29

he

Alabama

Supreme

ourtheld that

incethe

words ended

o

injure

ullivann his

rade r

business,nd

also alleged he

ommissionfan

indictable

ffense,

hey

were

ibelous

per

se,30

nd

Sullivan

ould

recover

withoutroof f ctualharm.31

21

eneral

nd

presumed

amages

llow

the

ury

o

award

ompensation

or

harm

one

to

reputationn a

way

hat

annot

e

easilymeasured nd

proven.

Generally,

he

plaintiff

must how

pecial

damagesbefore

eneral

amages

may

be

recovered. d. at

1001. How-

ever, fthe

defamation

alls

nto ne

of four

per

se"

categories, hen

presumed

amages

are

allowed

ven f

pecial

damages

annot e

shown.

See

Restatement

Second)

of

Torts

? 570

(1977).

The four

ategories

re

(1)

statementshat he

plaintiff

ommitted

crime,

(2) statementshat heplaintiffas a "loathsome isease," 3) statementshat end o in-

jure

the

plaintiff

n her

business

r

trade,

nd

(4) statementshat

he

plaintiff

s

involved

in"serious

exual

misconduct."

d.

23

See

Dun

&

Bradstreet .

Greenmoss

uilders,

72

U.S.

749,

757-61

1985)

(Powell,

J.,

plurality

pinion)

implying

hat

punitive

nd

presumed

amages

may

be

allowed

without

a

showing

f

actual

malice when

the

speech s of

purely rivate

oncern);

ee

also Re-

statement

Second) of

Torts 621

cmt.d

(1977)

(stating

hat he

Supreme

Court

n

Gertz

left

pen he

ssue f

whether

unitive

amages

may

e

awarded

when

here

s

actual

malice).

24

376

U.S.

254

1964).

25

Id.

at

256-57. The

advertisementn

question

s

reprintedn

an

appendix o

the

Court's

decision.

26

See id.

27

Id. at258-59.

28

Id.

at

258.

29

Id. at

256.

30

ee

supranote22.

31

New

York

Times,

76

U.S.

at263.




7/33


8/33

1998]

TheGertz

Doctrine nd nternet

efamation

483

C.

From

ublic

Officials

oPublic

igures

o

Private

ersons

In

Curtis

ublishing o. v.

Butts,39

ecided hree

years

fterNew

York

Times, heCourt xpanded he actualmalice" rivilegeeyond ublic ffi-

cialsto cover

persons

f

public

nterest. he

opinion

was

highly

ractured,

with

4-3-2

lurality

n

the

applicable

tandard f

iability.40

ustice ohn

Harlan,

writing

or our

ustices,

rgued

hat ince he

ase involved

mem-

ber of the

press

writing

bout

a

public

figurebut

not

a

public

fficial)

n

mattersf

public

oncern,

he

tandard

hould e

"highly

nreasonable

on-

duct

onstituting

n

extreme

eparture

rom

he

standards f

nvestigation

and

reporting

rdinarily

dhered o

by

responsible

ublishers."41

ince

the

concerns f

"seditiousibel"

underlying

ew

York Times id

not

apply

n

thesecases,the state nterestn protectinghereputationsf itscitizens

weighed

eaviern

the

nalysis.42

The other

ive

ustices

wanted

o

mpose

higher

tandard or

ecovery.43

In what

would

become he

pivotal

pinion, hief

Justice arl

Warren

ook

an

intermediate

osition nd

argued

hat he

"actual

malice"

tandard

f

New

York

Times

hould e

applied

o

public

igures hen

hematter

s

one

of

public

oncern.'" he

Chief

ustice oted

hat

ince he

ndof

the

Second

World

War,

the line

between

public

officialsnd

public

figures

had

"blurred,"

nd

"[in

many

ituations,

olicy

eterminations

hich

radition-

allywere hanneledhroughormal oliticalnstitutionsrenoworiginated

and

mplemented

hrough

complex rray

f

boards,

ommittees,

ommis-

sions,

orporations,

nd

associations,

ome only

oosely

onnected ith he

Government."45

urthermore,ublic

fficials

ndpublic

igures oth

have

access omass

media n

order

o 1)

influence

ublic

olicy nd

2)

respond

to

criticisms

f

their

iews nd

activities."'

39388U.S. 130 1967). Buttsnvolvedheathletic irector f a universityhoallegedly

conspired

o

fix

college

football

ame.

Id. at

135.

The

Butts

pinion

lso

addressed

he

companion

ase

of

Associated

Press

v.

Walker,

88

U.S.

130

1967),

which

nvolved re-

tired

eneral

who was

allegedly

nvolved n

leading

group

f

whites n an

attack

n

fed-

eral

marshals

uring race

riot t

the

University

f

Mississippi.

d.

at

140.

40 ee

Smolla,

upra

note

14,

?

2.02[4].

41

Butts, 88

U.S.

at

155.

Justice

Harlan

suggested

hatthis

arguablymore

concrete

standard

was

easier

for

plaintiff

o

overcome

han

actual

malice."

Id.

42

See id.

at

154-55.

43

See

id.

at 163

Warren,

.J.,

oncurring

n

result);

d. at

170-72

Black,

J.,

oncurring

n

part nd

dissenting

n

part); d.at

172

Brennan,

.,

oncurring

n

part

nd

dissenting

n

part).

"

Id. at 162-64Warren, .J., oncurringnresult).

45 Id. at

163

Warren,

.J.,

oncurringn

result).

46

d.

at

164

(Warren,

C.J.,

oncurringn

result).

As

will

be

noted

n

Part

I,

even

if

speakers n

the

nternet o

have

the

bility

o

respond o

criticism

although

hat

ssump-

tion

s

problematic),

hey

ertainly

ave

no

special

capability

o

influence

ublic

policy

simply

y

virtue

f

their

nternet

peech.




9/33

484

Virginia

aw

Review [Vol. 84:477

Immediatelyfter he

Butts

ecision,

twas difficulto see where

efama-

tion

aw

stood,47

ut

ower

ourts

ventually

ecognized

hat

ince here

were

fivevotesfor actualmaliceorbetter," heapplicable tandard orpublic

figures

hen

hematter as one of

public

oncern

as actual

malice.48

he

Supreme ourt

ventually

ameto the ame

conclusion,

espite

hefact hat

in

Butts he

highly

nreasonable

onduct"

tandard ad the

highest umber

of

votes.49

For a short

ime,

t

looked as

though

ommonaw

rules

f

recovery,

t

least

with

espect

o

the

media,might

isappear

orever. n

Rosenbloom

.

Metromedia,

nc.,

a

plurality

f

theCourt sserted hat

ven

private

ersons

wouldhave to

show ctualmalicefor

statement

boutthem n

the

press

when tconcernedn area of public rgeneral

nterest.",51

ustice rennan's

opinion

elied n

thefreedomf he

press

ndthe

public's

nterest

n

persons

involvedn

noteworthyventsnd

extended he

NewYork

Times

rivilegeo

"all

discussion nd

communication

nvolving

atters fpublicor

general

concern,

without

egard

o

whether he

persons

nvolved

re

famous r

anonymous."52

Rosenbloom

thus

uggested

hat

f

the defendant n a

defama-

tion ction ould

onvince

judge

hat he

peech

was

a matter f

"public r

general

oncern,"

heplaintiffould

face n

actualmalice

tandard,ven f

thedefamation

tself asthe

auseofhisbeing

ragged

nto hemattern the

firstlace.

D.

The

Court

Changes ts

Mind

The

plurality's

easoning

n

Rosenbloom as

rejected

ust hree ears ater

in

Gertz

.

Robert

Welch,nc.

The Court, er

Justice

ewisPowell, eset he

outer ounds

f

theNew

York

Times rivilege,54

olding hat he

ctualmal-

47

See

Harry

Kalven,

Jr.,

he

Reasonable

Man

and the First

Amendment,

ill,

Butts,

and

Walker, 967

Sup.

Ct. Rev.

267,269.

48 ee Smolla, upranote14, ? 2.02[4] citingCepeda v. CowlesMagazines & Broad.,

392 F.2d

417

(9th

Cir.),cert.

denied, 93

U.S.

840

(1968); News-Journal

o.

v.

Gallagher,

233

A.2d

166 Del.

1967)).

49

See,

e.g.,Bose

Corp.

v.

Consumers

nion,

66 U.S.

485,

489-90,

92-93

1984)

(noting

that

he

district

ourt's

onclusion

hat he

plaintiff

lectronicsirm

as

a

public

igurend

thus

ubject

o an

actual

malice

tandard

was not

challenged n

appeal);

Greenbelt

oop.

Publ'g Ass'n v.

Bresler,

98

U.S.

6,

8, 10

(1970)

(holding

hat

because

the

plaintiff

on-

ceded

he

was

a

public

igure,he

trial

udge

erredn

not

nstructing

he

ury

o find

iability

only

pon

showing

f

"actual

malice").

5?403U.S. 29

(1971).

51See

id. at

31-32.

Rosenbloom

had been

arrested

or

distributing

bscene

booksand

newspapers,

nd a

report n a

local

radio

station

ontained

number f

factual

rrors

aboutthe rrest. d. at32-35.

52Id. at

44.

53418 U.S.

323

(1974).

5

See

Robert

D.

Sack

&

SandraS.

Baron,

Libel,

Slander, nd

Related

Problems

1.2.6,

at

20

(2d

ed.

1994);

RodneyA.

Smolla,

uing he

Press

57-58

1986).




10/33

1998] TheGertz octrine

nd nternet

efamation

485

ice

standard

id not

apply

o suits etween

rivate

arties,

ven f the

ibel

involved matterf

public

oncern.5

Unlike herather nattractivelaintiffnRosenbloom, hohad beenar-

rested or

elling bscene

materials,56

he

Gertz

plaintiff,

lmer

Gertz, p-

pearedmuchmore victim f

the

ctualmalice

ule.

Gertzwas

an

attorney

who

had been retained

y

the

family

f a

boy

whohad

been shot nd

killed

by

a

Chicago oliceman.57merican pinion,

magazine

wned

y

the

de-

fendant,ublished

n

article

lleging

hat he

policeman

adbeen

et

up by

communist

onspiracy

n

an

attempt

o

discreditaw

enforcement

fficials.58

The

article tated

hat

Gertz

adbeen "an

officialf

the

Marxist

eague

for

Industrial

emocracy

.. which

as

advocated he

violent

eizure

f

our

gov-

ernment,"'nd thathe was a "'Leninist"' nd a "'Communist-fronter."'59

These

and

other

hargeswere

ompletely

ntrue.60 ertz

ued for

ibel

nd

won

$50,000ury

ward.61

The

trial

ourt,

owever,

verturnedhe

verdict

and entered

udgment

gainst

Gertz,

oncluding

hat he

New

York

Times

privilege

rotected

iscussionf

mattersf

public

oncern,

egardless

f the

status

fthe

person

efamed,

nd

that

Gertz

ould

not

meet he

ctual

mal-

ice

standard.62

The

Court

husfaced

vexing roblem:

he

matter

as

clearly ne

of

strong publicor

general

oncern,"63

ut,

thoughGertz

had

deliberately

taken hehigh-profilease,theCourt elt ehaddonenothingersonallyo

bring imself

nto he

public

yeor to

nfluence

olicy.e4

ustice

owell eit-

erated

hat

n

order o

protect

he

media's

First

Amendment

ight

omeloe

degree

f

abuse"' s

necessary,65

nd

the

media

hould

ot

be

forced o

guar-

antee

he

ruthf

their

ccusations.

At

the

ame

time,

e

pointed

ut

that

"the

ndividual'sighto

the

protectionfhis

own

good

name

reflects o

more

han

ur

basic

concept

fthe

essential ignity

nd

worth f

every u-

5

Gertz, 18

U.S.

at

347.

5

Rosenbloom, 03

U.S.

at

32-33. The

Court

n

Gertz alled

Rosenbloom

"rather

if-

ferentet

of

facts."

18 U.S.

at

332.

57

Gertz,

18

U.S. at

325.

58

Id.

at

325-26.

The

policeman

was

convicted

f

second

degree

murdern

the

criminal

case. Id. at

325.

59Id.

at

326

citations

mitted).

60

See id.

The

article

lso

falsely

uggested

Gertz

had a

criminal

ecord

nd

was

in-

volved

n

the

demonstrations

t the

1968

Democratic

onvention

n

Chicago.

d.

61

Id.

at

327-29.

62

Id. at

329.

63

See

supra

note

51and

accompanying

ext.

6

Gertz, 418

U.S. at

352.

65

d. at

340

(quoting

J.

Elliot,

Debate

on

the

Federal

Constitutionf

1787,

at

571

(1876)

(quoting ames

Madison)).

MId.




11/33

486

Virginia

aw

Review

[Vol.84:477

man

being-a

concept

t the

root

f

any

decent

ystem

f

ordered

iberty."'67

He noted that the

actual

malice rule

for

public

figure

laintiffs,

hich

"administersn extremelyowerfulntidote o the nducemento media

self-censorship,"lso "exacts

correspondingly

igh rice

rom he

victims

f

[defamation].

lainly

many

eserving

laintiffs,

ncluding

ome

ntentionally

subjected o

injury,

ill

be unable

o

surmount

hebarrier f

theNew

York

Times

est."`8

he

Court

oncluded hat

or

rivate

igures, state

maypre-

scribe he

relevant ules f

recovery,

ith

hree

aveats:

1)

negligence

s the

minimum

tandardllowed

nder he

Constitutiono

2)

negligence

ill

nly

support

ecovery

or

hose

pecial

amages

hat an

be

ascertained

ith ela-

tive

ertainty,70

nd

3)

the

plaintiff

ust

rove

ctual

malice

n

order

o

re-

cover resumedndpunitiveamages.71Most

relevant o

thisNote's

discussion

s the

Gertz

ationale

or

distin-

guishing

ublic

igures

rom

rivate

igures.72ustice owell

ustifiedhis is-

tinctionn

two

grounds.73

irst, ublic

igures ave

access

o

a

special

self-

help"

remedy

ecause

hey

ave

"significantly

reater

ccess o

the

hannels

of

effective

ommunicationnd

hence

have

a

more

realistic

pportunity

o

counteract

alse

tatementshan

private

ndividuals."74

n

contrast,rivate

figures ace a

severe

handicap

n

using

elf-help,

nd

this

ustifieshe

state

protecting

heir

nterest

hrough

efamation

aws.7

Second,

public

figures

have

entered

nto

the

debate

over

public

ssues,

fact he

Court alled

a

"compelling ormativeonsiderationnderlyinghe distinctionetween

public

nd

private

efamation

laintiffs."76

ublic

fficialsho

eek

elected

office

ccept certain

ecessary

onsequences f

that

nvolvement

n

public

affairs."77

ublic

igures

tand n a

"similar

osition"

ecause

[flor

he

most

art

hosewho

ttain

his

tatus

ave

assumed oles

f

especial

rominencen

the

affairs

f

society.

Some

occupy

ositions

of

such

persuasive

ower

nd

influencehat

hey re

deemed

public

figures

or ll

purposes.

More

commonly,

hose

lassed s

public ig-

ures

have

thrust

hemselves

o

the

forefront

f

particular

ublic

on-

67

Id.

at 341

(quoting

Rosenblatt .

Baer,

383

U.S.

75,

92

(1966)

(Stewart,

.,

concur-

ring)).

61

Id. at

342.

69

Id.

at

347.

70

Id.

at

349.

71

Id.

at

350.

72

See

Weber,

upranote

6,at

249-51.

73

See BruceW.Sanford,ibelandPrivacy 7.3.3, t303 2ded. 1993).

74

Gertz, 18

U.S. at 344

emphasis

dded).

75See

id.

76

Id.

77

Id.




12/33

1998]

TheGertzDoctrine nd nternet

efamation

487

troversies

n

order

o

influence

he resolutionf

the

ssues nvolved.

In either vent, heynvite ttention

nd omment.78

Note that owell's ommentsere,whichwouldguide ower ourtsnde-

termining

homust

vercome

ctualmalice n

a

defamation

uit,

mphasize

not

ust

the

purposeful

nterjection

n the

public ye,

but lso

the

desire nd

ability o influence

ublic

olicy.79

E. Post-Gertz

While

Gertz efined he

relevant tandard

f

recovery or

ibel

suitsby

private laintiffs

gainstmedia

defendants,t left wo

mportant

uestions

unanswered hich re

relevant o

defamation

n

the nternet:

1) Would

constitutionalrinciplese at stake fthe peechdidnot nvolvematters f

public

oncern,

nd

2) would

nonmedia efendants

e entitled

o the ame

protectionnder

New YorkTimes or

defaming

public igure?80he first

questions

mportant

o

the

nternet

ecause o much fthe

peech n cyber-

space

s

private

nd

rather

pecialized. The second

uestion s

even more

crucial o the

discussion ere, incemost

peakers n

the nternetouldnot

properlye described

s the press."82

In Dun

&

Bradstreet

.

Greenmoss

uilders,83pluralityfthe

Court on-

cluded

that when

speechbetween wo

privatepartiesdoes

not involve

78 Id. at

345.

79Cf.

Smolla,

upra

note

14,

?

2.17

(commenting

hat,

lthough

he

plaintiff's

bility

o

influence

olicy

s

relevant o

a number

f

decisions,

t s not

the ine

qua

non

since

uch

persons

s

drug

raffickers,ob

bosses,

nd

professionalntertainers

ave

been

consid-

ered

public

igures).

I'

Bothof

these

uestions

eally

nvolve

efamation

etween

rivate

arties-situations

in

which

he

plaintiffs not

omeone

raditionallyonsidered

"public

igure"nd the

de-

fendants

not

omeone

raditionallyonsidered

art

of the

"media."

Such

situations re

the

ubject f

his

Note.

In

almost

very

ase

where

member

f

media s

the

defendant,

he

subject sone of"public oncern."See Sack& Baron, upranote 4,? 1.2.7, t 27n.123.

81

See

ACLU

v.

Reno,929

F.

Supp.

824,

841-43

E.D. Pa.

1996)

describing

he

variety

f

content n

the

nternet),

ff'd,

17 S.

Ct.

2329

1997). See

also

infra

otes

178-180

nd

accompanying

ext

suggesting

hat the

typical

rivate

xchanges

n

the

Internet

may

merit

ess

First

Amendment

rotection).

82

This

point

s

debatable,

ut f

ll

persons

with

World

Wide

Web

page

arethe

press"

for

defamation

urposes, he

press

nd

speech

lauses of

the

First

Amendment

ssentially

collapse

nto

one,and

the

point

becomes

one of

semantics.

ee

infra

ote

85 and

accom-

panying ext.

83472

U.S.

749

(1985).

Dun

&

Bradstreet

nvolved

credit

eporting

gency

hathad

falsely

eported hat

business

was

bankrupt;

he

plurality

uled

he

redit

eport

was

not

a matter

f

public oncern. d. at761-62.TheCourt ound trelevanthat hereportwasdisseminatedoonly few ubscribers.d. at762. Sackand

Baron

uggest

his

wayof

ex-

amininghe

problem

might

e

disadvantageouso

certain

electronic

media"

because

of

its

bilityo

pinpoint

isteners.

ee

Sack

&

Baron,

upra

note

54,?

1.2.7 t

27

n.125

"Dun

&

Bradstreet

eaves

disquieting

uestions or

he

electronic

media....

Woulda

false

re-

port

n

Greenmoss

uilders,

nprotected

y

Gertz

when

disseminated

y

Dun

and

Brad-




13/33

488

Virginia

aw Review

[Vol.

84:477

"matters f public oncern," state s

free o allow

punitive

nd

presumed

damages

without

showing

f ctual

malice.84

lthough

ustice owell's

lu-

ralitypinion idnotfindtnecessaryo decide he ssue, majorityf us-

tices

lso stated hat he FirstAmendmentnterests

nderlying

ew

York

Times, ertz, nd the nstantase wereunaffected

y

whetherhedefendant

was

part fthemedia r not.85 hus he

followingtandard-of-liability

ate-

gories pply

o

suits rising

romnternetr

any

other

peech: 1)

When

he

plaintiffs a public fficialr

public igure,

he

ctualmalice tandard fNew

York

Times pplies; 2) when heplaintiffs

a

private

igure ut the peech

involveds one of public

oncern,

he

negligencetandard

or higher

s

es-

tablished

ystate aw)

is

permittedor ecoveryf

actualdamages; nd

3)

when hedefamations between rivate arties n a purely rivatematter,theplaintiffanrecover ven

punitive amages

with

showing

f

negligence

(unless tate

aw

establishes

highertandard).

One

question

hat he

Supreme

ourt as not

learly

nswereds how x-

actly o

determineo which

ategory plaintiffelongs. The lower

ourts

have been eft,with ittle irectionrom

he Supreme ourt, o

determine

who s a

"public igure"n

defamationases.86 ne lower ourt

amouslyx-

pressed

tsfrustrationhortlyfterGertz:

Defining ublic iguress

much

liketryingo naila jellyfish

o thewall."8"

Nevertheless,ost-Gertzases n

the ower ourts ave

somewhatlarifiedhe ssue.88 irst, ourts

ave fol-

lowedJustice owell'sGertz nalysis andrecognized wo kinds f public

street]

o a

few,

ave

been

fully rotected

f

published

y

the

Burlington

ree

Press o

tens

of

thousands

f

readers?").Note,

however,

hat

he

Supreme

Court

howed

willingness

to

protect

peechon the

nternet

n

the

first ase

squarely

ddressing

he

ssue. See

Reno

v.

ACLU,

117 S. Ct.

2329

1997)

(protectingindecent"

material

ransmittedver the n-

ternet rom

he

provisions

f the

Communications

ecency

Act of

1996).

84Dun &

Bradstreet,72

U.S.

at

757-61

Powell,J.,

lurality

pinion).

85

See

id. at 773

(White,J.,

oncurring

n

udgment),

81-84

Brennan,J.,

dissenting).

Justice

White

ook

ssue

with

iving

he

most

protection o the

mass

media,

who reach

themost eaders ndthereforeollute hechannels fcommunicationith hemostmis-

information

nd

do the most

damage

to

private

eputation."d. at 773.

Brennan

isted

series

of decisions

tanding

or

he

propositionhat ull

irst

Amendment

rotection

oes

not

depend on the

speaker's

identity."

d.

at

781-83.

Justice

rennan lso

concluded

that

separating

the

media from

nonmedia

for

special

protection would

create

"definitional"

ifficultiesnd

wouldbe

an

"anachronism." d.

at 782.

The

Internet

llus-

trates his

point

uite

well-whether

givenWeb

page is

partof the

"press"

would

be a

difficult

uestion

o

answer.

f

Justice

rennan s

right,ucha

questions

irrelevanto a

public

igure

etermination.

86

See

Sanford,

upra

note

73,

??

7.2-7.3;

molla,

upra

note14, ?

2.09[1].

87

Rosanova

v.

Playboy

Enterprises,

11 F.

Supp.440,

443

(S.D. Ga.

1976),

aff'd,

80

F.2d 859

5thCir.

1978). This

quotations

thebasis

for

Brooks's

dd

title,

Catching

elly-

fish n the nternet: he PublicFigureDoctrine nd Defamation n Computer ulletin

Boards."

Brooks,

upranote6.

8 For a

good

discussion

f

the

developmentf

the

defamation

ort

ince

1980, ee

San-

ford,

upra

note

73,?? 1.1-1.7.

89

Gertz,

18U.S. at

351.




14/33

1998]

The

Gertz

octrine nd nternet

efamation

489

figures:eneral urpose ublic

igures

nd imited

urpose,

r

vortex, ublic

figures General

urpose ublic igures,

uch s

high-levellected

fficials

andextremelyrominentelebrities,rerequiredoprove ctualmalice or

virtually

ny subject f

defamation.9'

imited

urposepublicfigures re

those

who

have

assumed rominenceor limited ime

r on

a limited

ange

of

ssues;

he

New YorkTimes

rivilegepplies nly

o

speech nvolvinghat

limited

ange.92 owercourts ave developed

number f multi-factored

tests

o

determine ho

s

a

limited

urpose ublic igure.93

ne commentator

has identified

t least

nine

factors hat ourts ave

found elevant.94hus,

90 ee Daniel Dalton,DefiningheLimited urposePublicFigure, 0 U. Det. MercyL.

Rev. 47

(1992);

Smolla,

upra

note

14, ?

2.07.

91

See,

e.g.,

Burnett . National

Enquirer,

93 Cal.

Rptr.

206

(Ct.

App.

1983),

appeal

dismissed

or ackof

urisdiction,

65

U.S. 1014

1984)

(finding

omedienne

arol

Burnett

had

to

prove

California's

tatutorily

odified

ersion

f

actual

malice even

though

he

defendant's

tatementsnvolved

private

inner

n

which

he

allegedly

ecame

intoxi-

cated and

abusive). See

generally

molla,

upra

note

14,

??

2.22-2.23

giving

xamples

f

kinds f

persons

eld

to be

general

urpose

ublic

igures).

92

Waldbaum .

Fairchild

ublications,

27

F.2d

1287,

1298

D.C.

Cir.

1980)

("[T]he

al-

legeddefamation

ust ave

been

germaneo

the

laintiff's

articipation

n

the

ontroversy.").

93

See,

e.g.,

Lermanv.

Flynt

Distrib.

Co.,

745

F.2d

123,

136-37

2d

Cir.

1984)

(noting

plaintiff

(1)

successfullynvited

ublic ttentiono hisviews n

an

effort

o nfluence

th-

ersprior o the ncident hat sthe ubject f itigation;2) voluntarilynjected imselfnto

a

public

controversy

elated

to

the

subject

of the

litigation;3)

assumed a

position f

prominence

n

the

public

ontroversy;

nd

4)

maintained

egular

nd

continuing

ccess to

the

media"),

cert.

denied,

71

U.S.

1054

1985);

Clarkv.

ABC,

684

F.2d

1208,

1218

6th

Cir.

1982)

adding

the

prominence

f

the

role

played

by

he

plaintiff]

n

the

public

on-

troversy" o the

two

requirements

n

Gertz), ert.

denied,

460

U.S.

1040

(1983); Wald-

baum,

627

F.2d

at

1297

holding

he

court

hould lso

examine

the

plaintiff's

ast

con-

duct,

he

xtent f

press

overage,

nd the

public eaction o

his

conduct nd

statements"),

cert.

denied,

49

U.S. 898

(1980);

Fitzgerald

.

Penthouse

nt'l,

25 F.

Supp.

585,

592

(D.

Md.

1981)

stating

he

test

s

"(1)

whether he

plaintiff

ad

accessto

channels

f

effective

communication;

2) whether

he

plaintiff

oluntarilyssumed

role of

special

prominence

in a

public

ontroversy;

3) whether

he

plaintiff

ought o

influence he

resolution r

out-

come of thecontroversy;4) whetherhecontroversyxistedprior o thepublicationf

the

defamatory

tatements;nd

(5)

whether he

plaintiff

etained

ublic

figure

tatus t

the time

f

the

lleged

defamation"),ff'd

n

part nd rev'd

n

part,

91

F.2d

666 4th

Cir.

1982), ert.

enied,

60

U.S. 1024

1983).

94According

o

Smolla,

he

factors re

the

following:

(1) The

extent

o

which

he

controversy"

reexisted

he

defamatory

peech...;

(2) The

effect f

the

controversy"n

the

nterestsf

nonparticipants;

(3) The

level

of

voluntariness

n

the

plaintiff's

nvolvement

nthe

ontroversy;

(4) The

plaintiff's

ccess

to

channels

f

communicationor

ounterspeech;

(5)

The

degree f

public

divisiveness

oncerning

he

ontroversy;

(6) The

extent f the

plaintiff's

rominencen

the

ontroversy;

(7) The

extent f

the

plaintiff's

fforts o

attempt

o

influence

esolution fthecontroversy;

(8)

The

extent

o

which

he

plaintiff's

ublic

figure

tatus

ontinued

oexist

t the

time

f

publication;

(9)The

extent o

which

he

llegedly

efamatory

peech s

geographicallyr

nstitu-

tionally

imited

o

the rea

in

which

he

plaintiffad

achieved

ublic

igure

tatus.




15/33

490

Virginia

aw Review [Vol.84:477

although

he

proponents

f the

Gertz-Internetrgumentelyheavily

nthe

language n Gertz oncerningublic igurelassification,95

ower ourts ave

generally ade more etailed nquirynto heparties efore hem.

II. THE GERTZ-INTERNET RGUMENT

A proper valuation

f

theGertz-Internetrgumentepends n at least

a

basic understanding

f

the

nternet's

ses and structure.

he

Internets

really networkf separate omputer etworks,unctionings one because

ofestablishedommunicationrotocols etween hem.%Most nternetraf-

fic

consists f electronicmail "e-mail"),97iletransferrotocol "ftp"),98

gopher,"

senetnewsgroups,1??ailexploders,101nd the WorldWide Web

("Web").102 -mail, ewsgroups,nd theWeb are themost ommonlysed

Smolla, upranote

14, ?

2.09[4].

Note that

nly 3)

and

(4)

derive

directly

rom he

an-

guage

n

Gertz,

18 U.S.

at

344-45,

while he

restwere

developed

by

ower ourts

rom

common

ense notions fwho s a

public

igure.

95

See

Gertz,

18

U.S. at

344-45.

96

This

Note

givesonly

cursoryntroductiono

the

nternet,

ee

infra

otes

97-107

nd

accompanying

ext.

There are a

number

f

ntroductory

exts

o

familiarize

ne

to

the

n-

ternet.

See,

e.g.,JohnR. Levine

& Carol

Baroudi,

The Internet

or

Dummies

2d

ed.

1994).

The

best

udicial

description

f

the nternet

nd ts

ervices s in

the

district

ourt's

findingsf

fact n

ACLU

v.

Reno,

929 F.

Supp.

824, 830-49

E.D.

Pa.

1996),

aff'd,

17

S.

Ct. 2329 1997) (making 23findingsnthe nternetased onstipulatedacts ythepar-

ties and its own

nvestigation).

he

Supreme

Court

ppeared

to

approve

of the

district

court's

findings.

ee

Reno v.

ACLU,

117 S. Ct.

at

2334

(commenting

hatthe

district

court's

indingsffact

provide he

underpinningsor

he

egal

ssues").

97

E-mail s

one-to-one

messaging

n

which

user

reates

message, ddresses

t

to an-

other

user's nternet

-mail

address

consistingf the

receiver's dentification

nd the

server n whichher

mailbox

esides),

nd

transmits

he

message

over the

nternet.

See

ACLU v.

Reno,

929

F.

Supp.

at

834.

The

message

its

n

the

receiver's

ersonal

ile

pace

(or

mailbox)

ntil he

choosesto read t.

98

Ftp

s

a

method

f

retrieving file

t a

remote

ocation.Both

transmitter

nd

receiver

have

ommon

rotocols o

allow he

eceiver

o

ocate he ile

nd

downloadt.

See id. t

835.

9

Gopher,

o named

because

the

program as

designed t

the

University

f

Minnesota

(whosemascot s the"GoldenGopher"), llowsa localcomputeroretrievenformation

by

connecting

o

a remote

omputer

much ike

ftp) nd

navigating

irectories

f

nforma-

tion. See

id. at

835-36.

Gopher

has

inks

oother

ocations

ust

ikethe

World

Wide

Web,

but

because t

retrieves ext

nly,

t

has

argely

een

replaced y

the

Web.

100

ewsgroups

re

databases of

messages

hat an

be

accessed at

any

time.

They are

organized y

topic,

with

lmost ny

topic

maginable

vailable

for

discussion.

Users

can

read

messages

postedby

others

nd

posttheir

wn

messages.

Almost

100,000

messages

are

posted o

newsgroupsach

day.

See id. at

834-35.

l01 lso called

istserv,

ail

explorers re

lists

f

e-mail

ddresses.

Messages

resent o

those

whohave

subscribed

o

a list by

givingheir

-mail

ddress) ither

utomaticallyr

by

a

moderator.

ome mail

explorers

end

out

messages ent

to

themby

subscriberso

the

ist, nd

some

are

merely

istribution

ists or

single

erson's

nformation.

ee

id. at

834. An example ofthe atter s MattDrudge'se-mail ervice, ee infranote131 and

accompanying

ext.

102

The

World

Wide

Web

consists

f

files

esiding

n

serversround

he

world.

By either

typing

n

the

nternet

ddress r

inking

hrough

nother

Webpage,

a user

ccesses a file,

which s

representeds text

nd

pictures

y

theWeb

browser.

Embedded

n the

file re




16/33

1998]

The

GertzDoctrine nd Internet

efamation 491

Internet

eatures,

ut

newsgroups,

eing

so

specialized,

end to

attract

smaller umbers f

people

who

are

very

nterestedn

a

particular

opic.103

Mostusers fthe nternet aveaccess o e-mail nd the bilityo viewWeb

pages.4

Alongwith

usinesses,

on-profit

ntities,

nd

governmental

rgani-

zations,

many

ndividuals

reate

Web

pages

on

a

wide

variety

f

subjects.'?5

Discussion

nd

communicationn

the Internet is

as diverse

s

human

thought.

16

Because there

s

such

variety

f

content nd no

central

rgani-

zation

for

he

nternetnd

the

Web,

servicesike

Yahoo

and

Lycos,

which

attempto

catalog

Web

pages,have

been

developed

or

earchingurposes.107

Against his

ackground,

ommentatorsike

Jeremy

eber

rgue hat he

speakers

who

accessthis

esource

hould e

considered

ublic

igure

lain-

tiffsndefamationctions.108

A.

The

Gertz-Internet

rgument, art

One: The

Ability o

Reply

A

computer

ulletin,

oard

ikea

usenet

ewsgroup, eber

ontends,

s

a

"textbook

marketplaceor he

tradeof

deas."1"

The

Internets

unique

because

ccess

o

itsresourcess

relatively

nexpensive,nd

once one

gains

access, he

ability

o

speak

as

well

as listen

s

theoreticallynlimited.110

s

Weber

notes, n

a

newsgroup,ach

person'smessage

s

posted lmost

nstan-

taneouslynd on

an

equal

footing

ith he

messages

f others.

Thus,while

it s true hat n ndividualan"'libel someone]nstantlyn frontfoneand

a

halfmillion

eople,"'111t s

also

possible to

post

a nearly

niversal

nd

instantaneous

esponse."1'

Like

a

public

igure, hocan

use

theprint

nd

broadcastmedia

o reply

o

chargesnd

answer

riticism,

o too

can a

de-

famed

articipantn a

newsgroup

nswer he

charge nd

reach

theexact

hypertext

inks-addresses f

Web

pages

which

he user can

access

by

clicking

n

them

with

he

mouse

pointer.

This

s the

primary ethod

f

navigating

he

Web.

See ACLU

v.

Reno,929

F.

Supp.

t

836-38.

103

See id. at 834 (describing-mail),834-35 listing hevarietynd large amountof

newsgroup

raffic),

36

describing

he

World

Wide

Web as

"fast

ecoming

he

mostwell-

known"

method f

nformation

xchange n

the

nternet).

104

arge

commercial

ervices

ike

America

Online

nd

Prodigy

rovide

Web

access

and

e-mail

s

part

f

their

asic

service, s do

most

niversity

ervices.

d.

at 832-33.

105

See id.

at

836,

842.

106

Id.

at

842.

107See

id.

at

837.

Yahoo

and

Lycos are

located

at

nd

,

espectively.

108

See

Weber,

supra note

6,

at

260-77.

109

Id.

at 263.

110

See

id.

"' JessicaR. Friedman,A

Lawyer's

Ramble

Down

the

Information

uperhighway:

Defamation,

4

Fordham

L.

Rev.

794,794

(1995)

(quoting

Peter

H.

Lewis,

Libel

Suit

Against

rodigy

ests

On-Line

Speech

Limits,

.Y.

Times,

Nov.

16,

1994, t

D1

(quoting

JacobH.

Zamansky)).

112

Weber,

upra

note

6,at

262

referring

o

this

s

"super-access").




17/33

492

Virginia

aw

Review

[Vol. 84:477

groupwho accessed

hedefamation

n

thefirst lace.113

n

fact,

his

kind

f

speech

nd

counter-speech

s so

common

hat n its

nastiest

orm t has

its

ownname: flame

ars."5114

This

ineof

reasoning

erives rom

ustice owell's

suggestion

hat

ublic

figures

ave

"significantlyreater

ccess o the

hannels

f

effectiveommu-

nication

nd hence have a more realistic

pportunity

o counteract alse

statements

han

rivate

ndividuals.""'

his

s an

admittedlyowerfuloint.

Weber orrectly

otes hatunlike

most

public igures,

ho mustwaitfor

press onference

nd

hope reporters

ill

accurately

eport

heir

nswer o

defamation,reply

n

the nternets

nstantaneous

nd n

one'sownwords.116

This

argument,owever,gnores

he

realities f the Internet.117ven

though heconceptual rameworkhatcreated yberspacemayhave re-

flected "textbook"

xample

f

themarketplacef

deas, here

re n

reality

fundamental

nequities

f

power

between

peakers n the Internet.The

ability

o

reply

n

cyberspace,ust ike

n

thereal

world, epends ot uston

one's access

o

the

nternet,

ut

lso

on

theability ndwillingnessf

others

to access ne's

reply.

he

tructuraleaturesf he

nternetreate his roblem.

Finding particular

eb

page from local computer

equires n affirma-

tive

tep,

ither

yping

n the

nternet

ddress, earchingor relevant

erm

using

search

ngine,

r

inking

rom

page

that as

already iscoveredhe

Web page.

The first

method an be

usedonlywhen

ne knows he nternet

address.1"8he second, ccessing search ngine,s commonlysedwhen

one

s

looking

or

particularubject

f

nterest,ota specificWeb

page.119

Thus,

he

best

way

o

draw ttention

o a Web site s to have others

lace a

link o it on their

ages or to hope

peoplewill earch or hesubject f

the

113

See

Weber,

upra

note

6,

at

264

("[A]

reply

an be

posted

.

.

to

the entire

udience

who had

access to

the first

message.");

ee also

Godwin,

upra

note

6,

at

7-8

(describing

Internetpeakers s havinghe amepower s themassmedia).

114

See

Mark

Dery,

Flame

Wars:

The

Discourse

of

Cyberculture,

2

S. Atlantic

Q. 559,

559

1993);

see also

Godwin,

upranote

6,

at 7

(describing

lamings

a

"common

xperi-

ence"

on the

nternet).

115

Gertz,

18U.S.

at

344.

116

See

Weber, upra

note

6,

at

262-63.

117

Weber

ddresses is

rgument

o bulletin

oard

ystems.

ee

Weber,

upra

note

6,

at

262-64.

The first

artof

this

ection

ddresses

how the

Gertz-Internet

rgument

might

apply

o the

ntire

nternet,

n

assertion

made

by

Godwin,

upra

note

6,

at 7-8.

Later,

he

operation f

Gertz

rinciples ithin

ewsgroupss

addressed.

See

infra

otes

145-164 nd

accompanyingext.

118

A few

ites re

so common

r

prominenthat

heir

ddresses re

widely

known, orexample, search ngine ike,ee supranote107andaccompa-

nyingext,

r a

prominent

usinessike

Web

site of

the

National

Basketball

Association).The

majority f

Web

addresses

wouldbe

difficult

o

guess

based

simply n

authorshipr

content.

119

See ACLU v.

Reno,

929F.

Supp.

24,

37

E.D.

Pa.

1996),

ff'd,

17

S.

Ct.2329

1997).




18/33

1998]

The

Gertz

Doctrine

nd

Internet

efamation

493

page

using search

ngine.120his

quality

f

being

ink-dependent

auses

severe

nequities.

An examplewill llustrateheproblems ith eplyingo defamationn

the

nternet.n a

recent ase

filed

n

the

United

tatesDistrict ourt or

he

District f

Columbia,

residentialdvisor

idney lumenthals

suing

nline

columnist

att

Drudge or

ery

erious

tatements

ade boutBlumenthal's

personal ife."21

rudge122

perates

conservative

Web page called The

DrudgeReport.123

e

publishes,rom is

one-bedroom

partment

n

Holly-

wood,

unconfirmed

olitical ossip,

nd

he

describes

imselfs a

cyberspace

version

fWalter

Winchell.

4

On

August 0,

1997, he

day

before

lumen-

thalwas

to

start isnew

ob

as an

advisor o Bill

Clinton,rudge

placedon

hisWeb

pagea reportlaiming lumenthalwhosewife lsoworks or heWhiteHouse) has a "spousal busepast that

hasbeen

effectively

overed

up."'25

Aftermmediate

ontact

rom

he

Blumenthals'

ttorney,rudge

e-

moved

hereport nd

ssued

retraction

ithin

wenty-four

ours, utthe

Blumenthals

iled

defamationuit

nyway.126

It

seems

lear

hat s a

special

ssistanto

President

linton,

lumenthal

is a

public

fficialnd

willhaveto

prove

ctual

malice

norder o

recover.127

Blumenthal's

omplaint

lleges

Drudge cted

with ctual

malice, clear

ig-

nal

his

ttorneys

re

ready o

concede he

oint.128

owever, he

most

mpor-

tant

oint

here s

the

mmense

ower f the

DrudgeReport

o

disseminate

120

CommercialWeb

sites

often

ay

for

dvertisingpace

on

other ites.

For

most ndi-

vidualswith

ot-for-profiteb

sites,we can

assume hat

ption

s

unavailable.

121

Complaint, lumenthal

.

Drudge,

No.

97-CV-1968

D.D.C.

filed

Aug.

27,

1997)

on

file

with he

Virginia

aw

Review

Association)

hereinafter

lumenthal];

ee

also Howard

Kurtz,

BlumenthalsGet

Apology,

Plan

Lawsuit,

Wash.

Post,

Aug.

12,

1997,

at

All

(describing

he

case);

Wendy

R.

Leibowitz,

s

AOL

Liable for

Drudge's

Libel? If

So,

'News'

on

Net

May

Vanish,

Nat'l

L.J.,

ept.

15,

1997, t B7

(describinghe ase

and some

of

the

egal

questions

nvolved).

122

Drudge

s a

former

manager f

a CBS

gift

hop. See

Todd

Gitlin,

oo

Much of

the

WebIs a Heap ofSludge,Newsday, ept.11,1997, tA43,available nLEXIS, News Li-

brary,

ewsdy ile.

23

Available

at

r

on

America

Online

at

keyword:

Drudge.

See

Blumenthal,

upra

note

121, t

Exhibit .

124

See

Leibowitz,

upranote

121,at

B7;

George

M.

Kraw,

A

Drudge

Report,

he Re-

corder,

ept.

24,

1997, t

5,

available n

LEXIS,

News

Library, ecrdr

ile.

125

See

Kurtz,

upra

note

121, t

All;

Blumenthal,

upra

note

121, t

Exhibit .

Drudge

quoted an

unnamed

ource

as

claiming

here

were

court

records o

prove

the

charge.

Kurtz,

upra

note

121,

t

All.

126

See

Kurtz,upra

note

121, t

All.

127

See

Rosenblatt .

Baer,

383

U.S.

75,

85

(1966)

(statinghat

he

"public

fficial"

ate-

gory

pplies

to

those

who

have

"substantial

esponsibilityor

r

control

ver

the

conduct

ofgovernmentalffairs"). venifBlumenthal erenot public fficialyoccupation,s

a

close

associate

of

the

President

e

probably

wouldbe

a

public

figure.

See

Rebozo

v.

Wash.

Post,

637

F.2d

375,

379-80

(5th

Cir.

1981)

(finding

close

associateof

President

Nixon

obe

a

public

igure).

128

See

Blumenthal,upra

note

121, t

59.




19/33


20/33

1998]

The

Gertz

Doctrine nd

Internet

efamation 495

addition, ne who

receives

an

e-mail

message

can,

with

one

command,

for-

ward

the

message

unchanged oone or

manyfriends.

f

the

message

has

in-

formation f

sufficient

nterest

say

a

dirtyoke

or

sizzling candal),

the

ex-

ponential

power

of this

system

an

duplicate

the

message

to thousands

of

people

within few

days.

This

exact

phenomenon ccurred n a

bizarrehoax that

flooded thousands

of e-mailboxes last

summer.139

message

quoting speech

supposedlygiven

by

novelistKurt

Vonnegut

to MIT

graduates

ricocheted

round

the

known

universe" n the summer

f

1997.1'4

The

speech

included such

postmodern

advice as

"[w]ear

sunscreen"

nd

"[r]emember

ompliments

ou

receive."

41

The

"speech" was

actually columnwritten

y

Chicago

Tribune

writer

Mary

Schmich-Vonnegut

has

never even spoken at an MIT graduation.142he

hoax

gertz and internet

Documents