Twitter Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed, As Tweets Were Considered Too Vague
from the keeping-it-vague dept
Last year, we wrote about how a property management firm in Illinois, Horizon Group Management, had sued a tenant for defamation over a short Twitter message she sent, claiming:
“Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.”
The woman had a grand total of 20 followers at the time, so it wasn’t like this was likely to have a huge negative impact on the company. Still, what was impressive was how Horizon defended its decision to sue, saying:
“We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization.”
That seemed rather obvious, given that by filing the lawsuit, the company brought a lot more attention to the fact that some of its tenants were unhappy. And, even worse, the lawsuit has gone nowhere. Dark Helmet alerts us to the news that the lawsuit has been dismissed as the comments were considered “too vague” and didn’t meet the qualifications to be considered libelous. This doesn’t mean that there can’t be defamation via Twitter, so if you’re going to defame someone, at least be vague about it in your 140 characters.
Filed Under: defamation, twitter
Companies: horizon group management, twitter
Comments on “Twitter Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed, As Tweets Were Considered Too Vague”
It’s not defamation if it is true.
Good, I hate these douchebags that frivolously file dumb lawsuits…FU!
Good, I hate these douchebags that frivolously file dumb lawsuits…FU!
Surely the “sue first” comment can be the basis of a countersuit for harassment.
Translation
“We’re a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization.”
Translation:
My son inlaws a lawyer
Re: Translation
I have long argued for freedom
of information in the Internet…
but the copyright thing is complicated.
I wish that it were designed a clever
system of interaction holders and torrents.
BUY AMBIEN
Defamation
TechDirt hates Kayne West.
Re: Defamation
“TechDirt hates Kayne West.”
Dark Helmet agrees with TechDirt….
“This doesn’t mean that their can’t be defamation via Twitter”
Should probably be
“This doesn’t mean that there can’t be defamation via Twitter”
Glad the suit was dismissed. Though, since Twitter is only a communications platform, it’s no different from any other platform. Libel comes from the communication, not the platform. You can be libelous in a newspaper, a leaflet, on television, or through a Twitter post. It’s what you say, not where you say it.
Re: Re:
Oops. Typo fixed. Thanks.
“…. totally agree with this statement “
zoloft 50mg
More Twitter defamation
No question about vague with the latest Twitter defamation. The UK is in the midst of a further Twitter legal action. A former British politician has already settled out of court with the BBC and ITV for 300 000 pounds, apparently, more to come over sexual abuse allegations. For a brief view on this, see here: http://regulatorylawsa.blogspot.com/2012/11/twitter-defamation-libel.html