Defamation on the Internet

Virginia & Maryland Internet Defamation Attorneys

Defamation is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a person’s reputation.  If someone has said or written something about you to the detriment of your reputation, they have defamed you.  Slander is the spoken form of defamation, and libel is the written form of defamation.

With so much communication taking place through digital media, with the rise of social networking websites, and with so much information being placed on the internet, it is entirely possible for one person to defame another on the internet.  Internet and digital communications are in no way exempt from the traditional law of defamation.

If you feel you have suffered defamation on the internet and wish to seek legal redress, call the Virginia & Maryland internet defamation lawyers of the SRIS Law Group.  Based on their years of experience in State and Federal Court litigation, the Virginia & Maryland internet defamation attorneys at the SRIS Law Group, P.C. will work to vindicate your reputation discretely, promptly, and forcefully.

VIRGINIA INTERNET DEFAMATION

Opinion Summary:

Speech concerning the official conduct of public figures is especially protected, and such figures seeking judgment in a defamation action must prove, in addition to an actionable statement and publication, malicious intent.

Facts:

According to the Complaint, the website “May4thCounts.com” publishes “certain information which is slanderous and libelous with regard to City Councilman.” It is also alleged that this information “relate[s] directly to the powers and responsibilities of the Councilman.” The website’s information is clearly designed to dissuade voters from supporting the Plaintiff’s reelection.

Holding:

The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that “discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates for public office are integral to the operation of our system of government and are entitled to the broadest protection the First Amendment can afford.” Further, speech concerning the official conduct of public figures is especially protected, and such figures seeking judgment in a defamation action must prove, in addition to an actionable statement and publication, malicious intent.  The only evidence before the Court that could speak to the intent of the publishing defendant is the content of May4thCounts.com. The Court is unable to find, without additional information, actual malice in this publication. The balance, then, between the freedom of expression guaranteed by our Constitution and holding one responsible for abuse of that freedom is found not by prohibiting the expression ex parte, but by testing its use in a judicial proceeding in which all parties have the opportunity to be heard.

MARYLAND INTERNET DEFAMATION:

Opinion Summary:

In a defamation case involving anonymous Internet posters, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the publisher’s motion for a protective order with regard to the claimant’s request for the identifying information of the anonymous posters as, by failing to state a claim for defamation, U.S. Const. amend. I, protected their identity.

Issue:

The case involved a question of first impression as to the process by which a claimant could discover the identifying information about anonymous Internet posters.

Fact:

The claimant asserted that the postings made by the John Does accused him of maintaining unsanitary food service establishments and of setting fire to a historic home. The trial court granted the publisher’s motion to dismiss but ordered it to comply with the claimant’s subpoena and reveal identifying information regarding some of the John Does from its records.

Holding:

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the publisher’s motion for a protective order, because when it compelled the identification of the John Does, the claimant had not pled a valid defamation claim against any of them. The court set forth guidance to trial courts addressing similar matters and the standard to be employed when balancing an individual’s First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, right to speak anonymously on the Internet against a plaintiff’s right to seek judicial redress for defamation.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content