Blumenthal v. Drudge

Last updated

Blumenthal v. Drudge
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Seal.svg
Court United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case name Blumenthal v. Drudge
DecidedApril 12, 1998
Citation992 F.Supp. 44
Holding
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Internet service providers from liability for defamatory statements made by their users.
Case opinions
Majority Paul L. Friedman
Laws applied
First Amendment to the United States Constitution, defamation, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.C.D.C., 1998), [1] was a case of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia concerning online defamation and whether an Internet service provider has legal liability for defamatory comments made by its users. The ruling became an early precedent upholding the legal protections enjoyed by online businesses as provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, though it raised unresolved questions about the legal responsibilities of online journalists.

Contents

Background

Matt Drudge was the author and operator of the Drudge Report , and early Internet news commentary and political gossip site, [2] [3] which at the time was hosted by America Online (AOL). [4] In August 1997, Drudge reported that Sidney Blumenthal, an adviser to President Bill Clinton, had been accused of spousal abuse against his wife Jacqueline. Drudge first e-mailed the story to direct subscribers of the Drudge Report, and then posted it to the publication's AOL site. [5] Drudge also scoffed at questions of whether his stories were accurate or if they should be expected to be so. [6]

The following day, attorneys representing the Blumenthals filed a claim at the D.C. District Court against Drudge and AOL for libel, [7] seeking $30 million in damages. [8] Drudge immediately wrote a retraction and public apology to the Blumenthals which he fully published in the Drudge Report, but the plaintiffs proceeded with the libel suit regardless. Drudge and AOL requested summary judgment on the grounds that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the dispute, as Drudge operated his site from his home in California while AOL was incorporated in a different state. Drudge also argued that he should qualify for the First Amendment protections guaranteed to journalists. [5]

Opinion of the court

The district court first determined that it had personal jurisdiction over the dispute, per precedents such as Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. in which it was determined that the availability of a website in a court's territory satisfied minimum contacts for jurisdiction. [9] Jurisdiction was also provided by the District of Columbia's long-arm statute because the injuries were suffered by the Blumenthals within the D.C. area. [1]

Thus, the motion to dismiss the case against Drudge was denied. However, AOL was successful in its motion to dismiss, due to the protections granted against legal liability for Internet service providers by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [5] That protection was not available to Drudge as the author of the content, and the Blumenthals continued their suit against him. The Blumenthals and Drudge reached an out-of-court settlement in 2001. [7] Sidney Blumenthal later claimed that he was forced to drop the lawsuit against Drudge because he could not afford the mounting legal fees. [10]

In a later proceeding, the district court determined that Drudge qualified for the reporter's privilege under the First Amendment freedom of the press, and would not have to divulge his sources for the original story on the Blumenthals. [11] This addressed the question of whether Drudge's online reporting and commentary made him a practicing journalist. [5]

Impact

While it was in progress, Blumenthal v. Drudge attracted significant media speculation over whether the court would take the opportunity to address new legal questions surrounding defamation and journalism on the Internet, which at the time were unsettled. There were also questions of whether online speech qualified for the highest level of First Amendment protection, as journalism and political speech did, [7] and whether an online commentator who talks about news and politics could be considered a journalist. [6] The ruling did not completely settle the question of whether established freedoms for professional print/television journalists would always apply online. [7] Some commentators have also argued that while the ruling clarified AOL's protection against liability for Drudge's defamatory comments, it may have also gone beyond the intentions of Congress when passing Section 230. [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.

<i>Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.</i>

Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, is an American legal case dealing with the protection provided an internet service provider under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) United States Code Title 47 section 230(c)(1). It is also known as the Star Trek actress case as the plaintiff, Chase Masterson – whose legal name is Christianne Carafano – is well known for having appeared on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The case demonstrated that the use of an online form with some multiple choice selections does not override the protections against liability for the actions of users or anonymous members of a Web-based service.

Online service provider law is a summary and case law tracking page for laws, legal decisions and issues relating to online service providers (OSPs), like the Wikipedia and Internet service providers, from the viewpoint of an OSP considering its liability and customer service issues. See Cyber law for broader coverage of the law of cyberspace.

<i>Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.</i> 1995 decision of the New York Supreme Court

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794, is a decision of the New York Supreme Court holding that online service providers can be liable for the speech of their users. The ruling caused controversy among early supporters of the Internet, including some lawmakers, leading to the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996.

<i>Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.</i> 1991 US District Court decision

Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135, was a 1991 court decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which held that Internet service providers were subject to traditional defamation law for their hosted content.

<i>Zeran v. America Online, Inc.</i> 1997 United States court case

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined the immunity of Internet service providers for wrongs committed by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides 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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sidney Blumenthal</span> American political writer

Sidney Stone Blumenthal is an American journalist, political operative, and Lincoln scholar. A former aide to President Bill Clinton, he is a long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton and was formerly employed by the Clinton Foundation. As a journalist, Blumenthal wrote about American politics and foreign policy. He is also the author of a multivolume biography of Abraham Lincoln, The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln. Three books of the planned five-volume series have already been published: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel, and All the Powers of Earth. Subsequent volumes were planned for later.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Randall Boe is the former General Counsel for AOL and has been involved in several cases regarding internet law. He was named the commissioner of the Arena Football League in March 2018.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

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.

<i>Doe v. MySpace, Inc.</i>

Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (2008), is a 2008 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that MySpace was immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from liability for a sexual assault of a minor that arose from posts on the MySpace platform.

<i>Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.</i> U.S. District Court ruling establishing the Zippo "Sliding Scale" test

Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania holding that a court has personal jurisdiction over a website originating in a different territory, if the website is accessible to Internet users in the court's territory. The case is a landmark opinion regarding personal jurisdiction for courts deciding Internet-oriented disputes, and it is one of the most frequently cited Internet law precedents.

<i>Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc.</i>

Blakey v. Continental Airlines, 992 F.Supp. 731 and 164 N.J. 38 (2000), is a case concerning whether an employer must be held liable for harassment that can potentially occur on an internal internet bulletin board. The plaintiff brought action under the federal district court for claiming a hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Concurrently, the plaintiff brought action under the New Jersey state court alleging that employer was liable for hostile work environment arising from allegedly defamatory statements. While the case began as a sexual harassment lawsuit, the unusual circumstances involving the piloting forum where much of the harassment took place forced the courts to explore important questions concerning liabilities for content posted in a decentralized, electronic manner as is frequently the case on the internet.

<i>Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC</i>

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) did not apply to an interactive online operator whose questionnaire violated the Fair Housing Act. However, the court found that Roommates.com was immune under Section 230 of the CDA for the “additional comments” portion of the website. This case was the first to place a limit on the broad immunity that Section 230(c) gives to service providers that has been established under Zeran v. AOL (1997).

<i>Illinois v. Hemi Group LLC</i> 2010 personal jurisdiction case

Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' ruling finding personal jurisdiction based on Internet transactions. In the initial filing, the state of Illinois sued Hemi Group LLC (Hemi) for selling cigarettes to Illinois residents over the Internet in violation of state law and for failing to report those sales in violation of federal law. Hemi moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the district court found that the Internet transactions provided a basis for Hemi to be sued in Illinois.

Hassell v. Bird was a case heard within the California court system related to a court-ordered removal of a defamatory user review of a law firm from the Yelp website. The case, first heard in the California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Four, unanimously ruled in favor of the law firm, ordering Yelp to remove the review in 2016. Yelp refused to remove the review and appealed the decision. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court reversed the order in a closely divided 4-3 decision, stating that Yelp's position fell within Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a publisher of user material, and was not required to comply with the trial court's removal order. However, the part of the trial court's decision that ordered the reviewer to remove the defamatory review and pay a monetary judgement were left intact. The Supreme Court of the United States denied to hear the appeal, leaving the California Supreme Court's decision.

<i>Green v. America Online, Inc.</i>

Green v. America Online, Inc., 318 F.3d 465 (2003), was a case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, over the protections granted to Internet service providers from legal liability for tort offenses committed by their users.

References

  1. 1 2 Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.D.C., 1998).
  2. ↑ "PolitiFact | Drudge Report". www.politifact.com. Retrieved August 9, 2020.
  3. ↑ Jason M Shepard (2008). "Drudge Report". Encyclopedia of American Journalism. pp. 146–7. ISBN   978-0-415-96950-5.
  4. ↑ "Drudge Report logs on to AOL". Variety. July 16, 1997. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  5. 1 2 3 4 "Blumenthal v. Drudge | Digital Media Law Project". www.dmlp.org. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  6. 1 2 Alterman, Eric (June 13, 2013). "The Mainstream Media Needs to Break Its Addiction to the Drudge Report". Center for American Progress. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Taylor, Phillip. "Lost in Cyberspace". The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  8. ↑ York, Anthony (May 3, 2001). "Drudge vs. Blumenthal". Salon. Retrieved September 11, 2022.
  9. ↑ Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
  10. ↑ Blumenthal, Sidney (2003). The Clinton Wars. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 784–785. ISBN   978-0374125028.
  11. ↑ Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 246 (D.D.C., 1999).
  12. ↑ Burke, Michael (2011). "Cracks in the Armor: The Future of the Communications Decency Act and Potential Challenges to the Protections of Section 230 to Gossip Web Sites". Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law. 17 (2): 244–245.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.