Defamation on Facebook and Twitter is becoming more and more common every single day because it’s so easy to post a comment or an item onto your Facebook wall or onto your Twitter account. And because emotions run high sometimes, that spontaneous compulsion in you to say something really mean about someone else or to make something up about someone else can be very real, and it can result in big legal problems under defamation of character law.

Welcome to Defamation Law Radio. Internet defamation of character is as easy to perpetuate as a blog post, Facebook update, rating submission, or a forum comment.  Your online reputation is measured by the websites return as Google search results.  Do you know what people are saying and writing about you?

Defamation on Facebook and Twitter is becoming more and more common every single day because it’s so easy to post a comment or an item onto your Facebook wall or onto your Twitter account. And because emotions run high sometimes, that spontaneous compulsion in you to say something really mean about someone else or to make something up about someone else can be very real, and it can result in big legal problems under defamation of character law.

Now, because it’s written defamation, then it’s typically going to be libel as opposed to slander. Libel on the Internet is when someone actually writes something that is classified as defamatory under defamation law. My name is defamation attorney Enrico Schaefer. My law firm specializes in Internet and online defamation of character cases. Today we’re talking a little bit about Facebook defamation and Twitter defamation.

The first thing that you need to know if you have been accused of defamation on Facebook or whether or not you believe you are a victim of defamation on Facebook or Twitter is that these types of issues tend to be much easier to resolve than when the defamation goes up on a website like Rip Off Reports, Yelp, Google Places, or some of the other ratings websites that are out there like Avvo, etc.

So, the good news is that for both the person who believes they’re the victim of defamation of character and for the person who posted the statement, which allegedly is a false statement of fact, which is subjecting you to a threat letter for defamation, is that these posts can be removed. At least as long as they’re not shared onto someone else’s wall already. So, unlike many situations that an Internet lawyer will get involved in, this was one that has a remedy that can be typically executed by both parties to the defamation.

So here’s the way it would typically work. Let’s say I’m an attorney representing the person who believes they’re a victim of defamation of character as a result of someone else posting something on Facebook, on their wall, which is a statement of fact which diminishes their reputation and which is factually untrue. What I’m going to do is I’m going to analyze the post. Make sure that I can find a false statement of fact. Call out the opinions that might be in there that are first amendment protected, and see if there’s a false statement of fact in the post that can be proven as true or false.

Assuming that I, as the plaintiff’s attorney, get through that hurdle, the next thing I’m going to do is take a look at whether or not a threat letter is appropriate to the person, the account holder on Facebook or Twitter who actually posted that defamatory statement. I might contact them through Facebook inbox, or I might contact them as a result of other information I’m able to pull off of the Internet about who they are, where they’re located, and who they work for.

I’m typically going to try and send that defamation of character threat letter in as many different directions as I can to that person. If I am representing the person who’s been accused of defamation of character on Facebook or Twitter, what I’m going to do is the same thing. I’m going to see if the statement qualifies as opinion or whether or not there’s potential liability for defamation of character as a result of what is said there.

In either instance, the goal is to potentially try and resolve the defamation issue, and in that instance, if I’m representing the plaintiff, we’re going to demand that the post be removed. We might demand a retraction. We might demand any number of different things to go along with that.

If I believe that there’s liability and I’m representing the defendant in a defamation of character on the Internet issue, such as on Facebook or Twitter, then what I’m going to do is I’m going to advise the client to potentially remove the post, assuming that we can get a release of liability from the person who’s making the accusation of Facebook libel.

So those are the ways that we’re going to typically handle these issues. Twitter is a little bit more challenging because of how easy it is for people to share tweets. So assuming that I can remove the tweet from my own account page, I may not be able to remove the tweet from other people’s account page. That might require some additional work, asking people to remove the post, etc.

The good news is that in many instances there’s not a lot of sharing going on, on Twitter. It’s the unusual tweet that actually results in someone reposting a tweet. So, these things can spread like viruses if in fact they’re popular, the person who’s being defamed is a famous person or someone who is known within an industry.

My name is defamation of character attorney Enrico Schaefer. Today we were talking a little bit about Internet defamation on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media accounts. Hope you learned something and we’ll see you next time.

You’ve been listening to Defamation Law Radio, where defamation of character, slander, and libel are always the topic of the day.  Whether you are a defamation attorney or a client, we are the number one resource for all your defamation questions.

Defamation of character claims can be challenging, but here’s what you need to know about what you have to prove in order to establish internet defamation or defamation of character on the web. In order to show that there is a defamation that has occurred, you have to prove that there was a false statement of fact about you or your business. Now, what is a false statement of fact? A false statement of fact in a defamation claim, whether it’s slander or libel is a statement that can be proven either true or false, or is false by implication.

So, here’s the scenario.  You have been accused of defaming someone online and believe that the person is going to come after you.  You need to understand a couple of things here.  Number one, you want to avoid a defamation claim in court – a defamation lawsuit – at all costs.  Sometimes, people get so emotional about these types of claims because, let’s face it, it’s about the person’s reputation, and they feel violated.  You’ve posted something on a forum, a ratings site, your blog, or your website, about someone that you believe is appropriate, or perhaps, you even made it an emotional moment, but now you think this person’s going to come after you.  In many instances, you can’t even have the comment or post removed from the internet because you are not the website operator, you have posted it someone else’s website.

So, you believe a claim of defamation is coming.  First rule, you need to try to avoid a claim being filed against you at all costs because once a lawsuit claiming defamation is filed against you, it is very difficult and very expensive to remove yourself from that process. The key here is that you want to defend yourself, and you want to educate the other side as to why you will win and prevail if they should file a lawsuit claiming defamation of character against you.

So, let’s say that you receive a threat letter alleging defamation on the Internet, and they’re threatening that if you don’t do x, y and z, that they are going to sue you for defamation.  The first thing that you need to do is take the threat letter for defamation seriously because if you ignore it, you may increase the chance that person will then go to a defamation lawsuit and you’re going to be in a whole different level of trouble at that point.

Many times, the defamation threat letters that are sent are not legitimate. They do not state a valid claim for defamation.  So, today, we want to talk about one of the primary defenses to a claim of defamation of character on the internet, which is going to be Internet libel because it is written, Ok?  And that first defense, the first one that you want to be able to rely on, is truth.  Yes, truth is a valid defense against a claim of Internet defamation.  If what you say is true, then you cannot be successfully sued for defamation of character.

So, is the statement that you made true?  Now this is going to get into an analysis of whether or not what you stated is a statement of opinion or statement of fact or somewhere in between.  If it is a statement of opinion (you believed that it was true and it is an opinion that you’re stating), then you’re going to be fine because it’s not a false statement of fact.  In order for a claim of Internet defamation, whether it’s Internet libel or Internet slander, to stand, it has to be a false statement of fact.  If it is a fact, if you say that John Doe was a person who at the meeting punched someone else, that can be proven as true or false, and if it’s true, then the fact that you say it cannot bring a legitimate claim of defamation against you.

So, is it opinion?  Is it a fact?  If it’s a fact, is it true? If it’s true, that is the best and most valid defense to claim of internet defamation that you are ever going to be able to put in play.  So, in order to be able to fight back against a threat letter sent to you claiming defamation of character on the Internet, you need to be able to establish the truth of the matter.

If you work with an attorney who specializes in Internet defamation issues, that attorney is going to ask you to provide any evidence that you might have of the truth of the statement.  That could be documents, witnesses, affidavits and a number of different things.  A good defamation lawyer, is going to do more in response to the threat letter alleging libel or slander, is going to do more than say it’s true, they’re going to try and grill you as the client to prove that it is true. Now, some things are easier proven than others are, but you want to be able to provide that information to your defamation lawyer, if you can, because that information is going to help your case.  Remember, there’s a lot of nuance going on here.  A lot times, there is an implicit thing going on with the attorneys and that is whether or not the other attorney believes that the case is weak or strong.  If you can help establish that the case is a weak case, you have drastically reduced the chance that someone’s going to file a lawsuit against you claiming Internet claiming Internet defamation of character.

My name is Enrico Schaefer. I practice Internet law.  I am an Internet lawyer and I specialize in these issues.  Until next time, we’ll see you.  Have a great day!

You’ve been listening to Defamation Law Radio, where defamation of character, slander, and libel are always the topic of the day.  Whether you are a defamation attorney or a client, we are the number one resource for all your defamation questions.

As a defamation attorney practicing across the United States, with lawyers and offices in Michigan, we handle a large number of Michigan libel and slander cases. Many lawyers fail to understand the intricacies of Michigan’s libel and slander statute.  While there are often similarities, many states have different defamation laws.  If you plan on filing a lawsuit for defamation, you will need an experienced local attorney licensed to practice in the state in which you plan to file a lawsuit.

Here are the basics of Michigan’s libel (written) and slander (spoken) defamation statute.

Defamation Per Se: MCL 600.2911 (1) Words imputing a lack of chastity to any female or male are actionable in themselves and subject the person who uttered or published them to a civil action for the slander in the same manner as the uttering or publishing of words imputing the commission of a criminal offense.

Unlike some states, Michigan only recognizes defamation per se for false statements of fact which impute a lack of chastity, immoral or criminal conduct. Other states include additional categories such as business reputation. Defamation per se plaintiffs do not need to allege or prove special damages. Damages to reputation and feelings are presumed.  Otherwise, plaintiffs are limited to actual damages unless they first request a retraction.

Actual Damages Only: MCL 600.2911(2)(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in actions based on libel or slander the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for the actual damages which he or she has suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, occupation, or feelings.

Actual damages include injury to reputation, mental suffering, embarrassment and humiliation which must be established by proof and evidence. Mental anguish and suffering is a proper element of damage in an action for libel or slander.

Exemplary & Punitive Damages / Demand for Retraction: MCL 600.2911(b) Exemplary and punitive damages shall not be recovered in actions for libel unless the plaintiff, before instituting his or her action, gives notice to the defendant to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so, and proof of the publication or correction shall be admissible in evidence under a denial on the question of the good faith of the defendant, and in mitigation and reduction of exemplary or punitive damages. For libel based on a radio or television broadcast, the retraction shall be made in the same manner and at the same time of the day as the original libel; for libel based on a publication, the retraction shall be published in the same size type, in the same editions and as far as practicable, in substantially the same position as the original libel; and for other libel, the retraction shall be published or communicated in substantially the same manner as the original libel.

Exemplary and punitive damages can be awarded after a demand for retraction is ignored. Contact a defamation attorney for more information.

Welcome to Defamation Law Radio.  My name is Internet Law Attorney Enrico Schaefer.  My law firm specializes in internet defamation claims litigation both in representing plaintiffs who have been the subject of a defamatory statement and also defendants who’ve been accused of defamation of character.  Typically, our law firm specializes in defamation that occurs on the internet.  That is, blog posts, websites, review sites, these types of things where people provide information and communication about a variety of things, including other people and other companies.

Previously, we’ve had shows that dealt with the issue of what is a defamatory statement and what is publication.  Today, I want to talk about the third element of defamation, the third general element of defamation under most state defamation law.  The third element that any plaintiff who files a claim or lawsuit alleging defamation on the internet.  The third thing they’re going to have to prove is that the defendant knew or should have known that the statement that they made, the alleged defamatory statement, was false.

Proving a false statement is probably the most challenging aspect of proving defamation, and the reason is, because, number one, is a statement a statement of fact or statement of opinion? This is a threshold issue that every plaintiff who is contemplating having their attorney send a threat letter to a defendant alleging defamation needs to deal with.   If it is a statement of opinion, then it typically is not actionable.  So, what’s a fact and what’s an opinion?  Most defamation lawyers will explain it this way.

If something is provable as true or false, then it is more likely a statement of fact.  If something is not provable as true or false, then it is more likely a statement of opinion.  Opinions are typically not defamatory.  So, let’s give you a concrete example.

If I say, as the defamation defendant, or the alleged defamation defendant, if I say, about the plaintiff, that they were at the bar on Tuesday night and got in a fist fight and went to jail as a result of that fist fight.  Well, that’s either true or false.   I can prove that either happened, or it didn’t.  There is a time component, a place component.  There are specific actions that are provable as true or false.  If it turns out that, in fact, the plaintiff wasn’t at the bar, did not get in a fight and did not go to jail, then that is a potentially defamatory statement.  Then, under defamation law, that claim is going to at least meet the element of a false statement of fact.

Now, let’s say that the plaintiff, in fact, was at the bar and did get in a fight but did not go to jail.  Well, that’s, still, the fact that I said that the plaintiff went to jail as the alleged person who’s defamed someone else’s character.  If I say that they went to jail and, in fact, they didn’t, then it’s provable as true or false.  Therefore, again, is a worthwhile of analysis in terms of whether or not there might be an action for defamation which could support defamation litigation or at least a defamation threat letter.

Now, what is a statement of opinion?  If I say I was at the bar the other night with the plaintiff, and I saw them interacting with a group of people, and thought they were rude, that the plaintiff was a jerk.  Well, whether or not someone is rude, and whether or not someone is a jerk, is not a statement which can be proven as true or false.  Maybe in the plaintiff’s mind they are not jerk, but it is not provable as true or false. Therefore, it is a statement of opinion and is not actionable under defamation law.

In many instances, defamation is occurring on the internet.  People are writing things on the internet about third persons that may or may not be true.  Internet defamation is a little bit more complex in a variety of ways, and it’s much more prolific.  There is a lot more commentary going up on the internet where people are reviewing or rating third parties, making comments on blogs, sharing their life story, and posting onto Facebook.  Defamation on Facebook is a very common thing.  Defamation on Twitter is a very common thing.

So, let’s talk a little bit more about proving that a communication is not only false, but that defendant knew or should have known that the communication is false.  So, what is the standard for known or should have known?  Typically, in most states, it’s similar to a negligence standard.  If I write on the internet “I saw plaintiff at the bar on Friday, and they got into a fight and went to jail” but I was in Minnesota and had no reason to know whether or not they were at the bar on Friday night, then that would be very negligent of me to publish that when I have no reason to know that it’s true.  If, on the other hand, I read on another website, that plaintiff was at the bar, that got in a fight and gone to jail, and I republished those statements, then the question is going to be, well, if I read it somewhere else, was I negligent in repeating it on my website?  And that’s probably going to be a fact issue, and it’s probably going to come down to what was this other website that I read it on? Was it reputable?  Was it a newspaper website where you know information is vetted?  Or was it a spammy website where people are constantly being defamed and false information abounds?  These are the types of things that are going to come into play.

The other aspect of this third element, which is really important, is how false is false, you know.  The test of whether or not a defamatory statement is true or false really has a lot of gray area.  Because rarely are statements 110% true, Okay?  Sometimes, they’re shades of gray.  So, even if a statement is not literally is true, but is, overall, the substance of it is true, that it’s substantially true, okay, that whatever inaccuracies are minor, then the defendant is still going to be able to prove that, in fact, the statement was  not a false statement, that the statement was a true statement.  So, just because a little bit of the statement is false, doesn’t mean that I’m going to be able to meet this burden as a defamation plaintiff suing for defamation of character, that I’m going to be able to meet this element.

Let me give an example, let’s go back to the bar example.  If, in fact, I say that the plaintiff went to a bar, got in a fight and went to jail, and it turns out that the plaintiff did get in a fight and go to jail but was at the mall not the bar, well, the fact that, you know, that’s provable as true or false, they weren’t at the bar, but the substance, the overall substance of my statement, is still true, and that minor technical detail, that minor technical falsity, isn’t going to help me as a defamation plaintiff, and my attorney should tell me that is not going to be colorable as a claim.

So, that’s all for today, we’ve now covered all three general elements of defamation.  It has to be a defamatory statement, it has to be published to third parties, and it has to be a statement which the speaker or publisher of the statement knew or should have known was false at the time that they made the statement.

We’ll see you next on Defamation Law Radio.  This is Defamation Attorney Enrico Schaefer signing off.

You’ve been listening to Defamation Law Radio, where defamation of character, slander, and libel are always the topic of the day.  Whether you are a defamation attorney or a client, we are the number one resource for all your defamation questions.