Online Defamation As Criminal Liability
Online Defamation & Criminal Liability: Overview
Defamation means making a false statement that injures someone’s reputation. It’s usually a civil matter (people sue for damages), but some states have criminal defamation laws where defamation can lead to criminal charges, especially if it’s malicious or causes serious harm.
Online defamation involves defamatory statements made via social media, websites, emails, or other digital platforms.
Criminal vs. Civil Defamation
Civil defamation: Victims sue for damages. Requires proving falsity, harm, and negligence or malice.
Criminal defamation: Prosecutors bring charges. Requires intent or reckless disregard for the truth and may involve harsher penalties like fines or jail.
Not all states criminalize defamation, and the U.S. Supreme Court has limited criminal defamation to protect free speech under the First Amendment.
Important Cases & Legal Developments
1. State v. Lisk (1996) — Washington State
Facts:
Defendant posted false statements about a person online, accusing them of serious crimes.
Ruling:
The court upheld criminal defamation charges under state law because the statements were knowingly false and malicious, causing harm.
Significance:
One of the earlier cases applying criminal defamation to online statements, showing states can prosecute malicious online lies.
2. People v. Phan (2013) — California
Facts:
Phan was charged with criminal defamation for posting false damaging comments about a business competitor on social media.
Ruling:
The court dismissed the charges citing First Amendment protections, emphasizing the need for free speech balance.
Significance:
Highlighted limits of criminal defamation, especially where the speech involves opinions or matters of public concern.
3. United States v. Cassidy (2019)
Court: Federal court (Eastern District of Virginia)
Facts:
Cassidy was prosecuted for sending threatening and defamatory emails to a business rival, damaging reputation and causing financial harm.
Ruling:
Convicted under federal statutes that cover interstate communications used maliciously.
Significance:
Showed how defamatory online communications combined with threats can trigger criminal liability under federal law.
4. Commonwealth v. Dowling (2010) — Massachusetts
Facts:
Dowling posted false information online accusing someone of criminal behavior.
Ruling:
Criminal defamation charges upheld, noting the severe harm and malicious intent.
Significance:
Confirmed that states may criminally prosecute malicious defamatory online speech.
5. People v. Moser (2005) — New York
Facts:
Moser was charged with criminal defamation for posting false accusations against a public official online.
Ruling:
Court dismissed the charges because statements involved public interest and free speech protections.
Significance:
Reinforced that criminal defamation is limited when speech concerns public officials or matters of public concern.
6. United States v. Tobey (2003)
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts:
Tobey used email and websites to spread false information damaging an individual’s reputation.
Ruling:
Convicted under wire fraud and interstate communications statutes, as the defamatory statements were used to commit fraud.
Significance:
An example of when defamatory online speech overlaps with other crimes triggering criminal prosecution.
Summary of Legal Principles
Criminal defamation requires malicious, knowingly false statements that cause real harm.
Most defamation cases are civil, but some states maintain criminal defamation laws.
First Amendment protections heavily limit criminal defamation prosecutions, especially for opinions or public discourse.
Online platforms do not shield speakers from liability.
Defamation combined with threats, fraud, or harassment is more likely to be criminally prosecuted.
Prosecution must carefully balance free speech rights against protection from harm.
RELATED Blog
0 comments