gertz and internet
TRANSCRIPT
-
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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).
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
7/33
-
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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).
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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-
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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").
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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).
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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.
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 -
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
19/33
-
8/10/2019 Gertz and Internet
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