As we wrap up the topic of defamation this week and begin to
move into next week’s topic of privacy, I would like to take this time to
explore how the two are interconnected. More specifically, I believe it is prudent
to discuss how the ever-decreasing sense of privacy in the twenty first century
is a significant factor in the rising difficulty of adequately defining
defamation. The main reason being that a lack of privacy blurs the lines of
what constitutes a public figure and what constitutes a private citizen. As
defined by the Supreme Court, “on one level there are some persons who ‘occupy
positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public
figures for all purposes. [At the second level are those who] ...have thrust
themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to
influence the resolution of the issues involved…’” (Tedford and Herbeck 90). With
the advent of the Internet, anyone can post their thoughts and beliefs
concerning an issue, and anyone who can navigate the web can find and read
them. Furthermore, these statements and
comments can be referenced in another’s argument/post, giving them even more
exposure than the original publisher intended.
It is for these reasons that we
must rethink how we define a limited-purpose public figure. Should the
definition be extended to include those who have posted a statement expressing
their take on the issue? I for one believe the formal definition of a limited
purpose public figure should be extended to include comments on all social
media platforms. My reasoning for this is twofold. First, I believe in the
philosophy that one should own one’s words. If you want to speak your mind,
then you had better be prepared for repercussions. Second, by encompassing all
those who use social media outlets to express their views on an issue, the new
definition of a limited-purpose public figure will hopefully eliminate some of
the ambiguity when evaluating claims of defamation on the Internet. By
eliminating the public vs. private figure debate, it means that courts can
focus on the message itself.
However, that still leaves the more
present issue of where we draw the line between defamation and rude comments. For
example, in February of 2016, Donald Trump posted a tweet that called Cheryl
Jacobus a major loser who has zero credibility. According to an RTDNA article,
“A judge wrote that Trump’s tweets did not qualify as defamatory, even though
they were ‘clearly intended to belittle and demean’” (Francevilla). The author
of this article went on to say that, “It is unclear how the courts are supposed
to determine whether a tweet or Facebook comment is made with actual malice.”
(Francevilla). Although this is certainly a gray area, I believe it is possible
to establish a better distinction between what is and what isn’t defamation.
Here is my proposal: vague or generic name-calling meant to insult is placed
under a category I call “rude rhetoric” while false statements made with specific
examples or stories with the intent to destroy credibility are placed under
defamation. For example, a post calling someone a pig-faced moron would
classify as “rude rhetoric” while a post claiming that [insert name here] is
cheating on his spouse would be classified as defamation.
To conclude, I definitely believe
that the decreasing sense of privacy in our society has significantly blurred
the line between public figures and private citizens. More specifically, the
ability for anyone with the capability to post statements online has greatly
increased the difficulty of determining who is a limited-purpose public figure.
In my opinion, if you choose to post a comment or statement concerning a public
controversy, then you are accepting the possible counterarguments and backlash
that it might generate. For this reason, I advocate that the formal definition
of a limited-purpose public figure is extended to include those who have
commented on a public topic. However, an important clarification to make is that
these individuals are only public figures when the conversation concerns the
topic originally addressed by the individual’s comment/statement. Therefore, a
private citizen can only be considered a limited-purpose public figure if they
make a statement online that addresses a specific public controversy; in all other
regards they are a private figure.
Lastly, what do you think of my proposal
for separating malicious statements online into the categories of “rude
rhetoric” and defamation? Do you think it would help clarify the issue of
online defamation? Does the definition need to be revised or extended in
anyway? What are your thoughts?
Sources:
Francavilla, Donna. “A closer look at defamation in the social media
era.” RTDNA, 15 May 2017, https://www.rtdna.org/article/a_closer_look_at_defamation_in_the_social_media_era
Accessed 29 Sept. 2017.
@realDonaldTrump, “Really dumb
@CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went
hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!” Twitter, 5 Feb 2016, 6:01 p.m., https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/695789403374014464?lang=en
Accessed 29 Sept. 2017
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the Unites States.
8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.
Comments
Post a Comment