1

Leah Bascue
Digital Communications 140
Legal and Ethical Issues Paper
In November of 2012 Andrew Farley tweeted a statement that ended up
costing him one hundred and five thousand dollars. His slanderous comments about
a teacher in the high school he graduated from led to a bitter lawsuit that the
plaintiff won and ended up costing the defendant profoundly. Mr. Farleys father was
a teacher at the high school and because of health concerns and ailments had to
eventually leave his employment in 2008 for these health issues. The woman who
took his spot was filled by an honest and caring teacher, Mrs. Christine Mickle. The
plaintiff, and son of the teacher who stepped down, was not taught by the teacher
and soon graduated. A year after he graduated he tweeted a scathing post,
containing accusations that Mrs. Mickle had somehow had a hand in creating the
open teaching position, and ridiculously, also a factor in the health issues that
plagued the young mans father. Mrs. Mickle was so distressed and upset with the
remarks that she took sick leave and only returned to work recently, on a limited
basis. She was not only hurt by the statements but appalled that someone might
think she would have anything to do with creating the health issues. She worried
the statements would reflect poorly on her reputation and the community would see
her in a negative light. The plaintiff eventually took Mr. Farley to court, suing for
defamation. It was proved that she had no part in the vacancy of the teaching
position or the health concerns, "For some reason it seems that the defendant bears
a grudge against the plaintiff, apparently based on a belief that she had something
to do with his father leaving the school," said Judge Elkaim (1). The plaintiff was

2
awarded eighty thousand dollars in compensatory damages and another twenty
thousand in aggravated damages.
In a time when opinions, feelings, and issues are published so freely on social
media sites its imperative to know your rights, limits, and consequences for data
shared on these sites. These social media sites are a breeding ground for libellous
statements with the potential to ruin lives. Libel defamation is defined as a false
and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someones reputation, and
published with fault meaning as a result of negligence or malice (2). The libellous
comments are meant to harm the reputation of the victim. Often times these
comments can lead the victim to make irrational decisions, physical, mental, and
emotional anguish, and sometimes can even lead to a disruption of lifestyle in the
form of loss of employment, which leads to loss of wages.
In order for a comment to be considered libellous, its validity must be proved.
Once proved false the victim can take action. In the United States laws put in place
for cases of libel defamation are created at the state level. Each state decides what
actions they want to take against the culprit and are tried in a civil court. Although
criminal punishment is not handed down, meaning typically no jail time is served,
the defendant, if found guilty, would have to pay monetary penance for the crime.
However, since some might consider the constitutional right of freedom of speech
to be a factor, some constitutional law may apply (3). This protection of the right to
speech may be considered, but certainly does not condone defamation.
In order for a plaintiff to be successful in a lawsuit several steps must be
taken. The defendant must first have provided the statement, in this case in the
form of some digital communication, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other

3
form. This must be distributed to at least one other individual, which in most cases
the statement could go viral and reach a much broader audience than anticipated.
Secondly the statement must be able to identify the plaintiff, whether it name the
individual out right or give enough information about the individual for them to be
identified. Thirdly the plaintiff must prove that the statement was made with the
intention of malice or that the defendant acted negligently. If all these steps are
followed and the defendant is found guilty the court must decide on the amount of
monetary payment that compensates for the plaintiffs damages. These amounts
may include medical bills incurred for health consequences of the defamation. They
may include lost wages incurred if the reputation was questioned by an employer
leading to termination of employment and also applies to mental anguish that may
have caused the plaintiff to quit their job. Lastly these amounts may also be
punitive, or amounts intended to punish the defendant for the action. Some states
also require the plaintiff to request the statements be removed and corrected before
they are awarded any of the damage payments (4).
Individuals are not the only type of plaintiffs. Businesses, churches,
community groups, government entities, these can all be considered as plaintiffs
and may take action if the statements are considered defamation. Individuals are
also not the only potential defendants in cases of defamation. Internet providers
who gave access to the internet to the individual who posted the statements may
also be considered as defendants in lawsuits. Many plaintiffs do this because of the
profits of the company and the higher payouts of damages that are possible.
However, the Communications Decency Act in Section 230 helps protect these
companies and excludes them from most lawsuits (5). Section 230 states, "No
provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher

4
or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider
(6)." Simply put, someone or some company that republishes the information is not
considered to have created the statement and is not accountable for its
consequences.
Its clear to see from all the libel and slander related deaths in young teens
that the rules need to change. Often young adults dont see the consequences of
their actions. If these consequences were more harsh and visible and victims knew
they could do something about it and see some form of justice things would change.
In the article Social Media and the Law: The Future of Online Defamation, the says,
Any statement you make on social media that a person, a brand, a company, a
government, a religion, a product or service can and might be held against you in a
court of law and the cost of said defamatory statements will continue to rise for the
next months and years (7). The consequences of the actions will follow the culprit
for the rest of their lives. Monetary specifically, but also emotionally. They will carry
the baggage of the damage their words caused for the rest of their lives.
In conclusion its important to remember that opinions are not considered
defamatory. If the statement includes an admission of opinion or feeling then the
statements cannot be considered false and therefore are not considered to be
libelous. Remember when expressing free speech to consider consequences, legally,
most importantly, but also what these statements may do to the publishers own
reputation.

Works Cited
1. Whitburn, M. (2014, March 6). The Tweet That Cost $105,000. The Sydney
Morning Herald. Retrieved April 6, 2015, from
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-tweet-that-cost105000-20140304-341kl.html
2. "Online Defamation Law." Electronic Frontier Foundation. 25 Aug. 2011. Web.
21 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation>.
3. Defamation Law - Guide to Libel and Slander Law." - HG.org. Web. 21 Mar.
2015. <http://www.hg.org/defamation.html>.
4. "Defamation." Defamation. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. <http://www.dmlp.org/legalguide/defamation>.
5. Social Media and Online Defamation: Slander and Libel | Nolo.com."
Nolo.com. Web. 21 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nolo.com/legalencyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html>.

6
6. "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." Electronic Frontier
Foundation. Web. 6 Apr. 2015. <https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230>.
7. Solomon, A. (n.d.). Social Media and the Law: The Future of Online
Defamation. Retrieved April 9, 2015, from http://www.techvibes.com/blog/thefuture-of-online-defamation-2014-06-17