DiscussMormonism.com

To what degree can statements about an "anonymous" character on a message board be "libelous" towards that entity? If a person posts under an assumed name and persona, what exactly is being libeled?

As far as I know, "libel" isn't actionable unless it is injurious; there have to be damages. My favorite example of this is the suit Woody Allen recently brought against American Apparel for using his image in their advertising. Their defense was simply that the advertising didn't injure Allen's reputation because Woody had aleady "ruined" it himself! (Slightly different issue, I know, but a funny illustration of the principal). How can an anonymous poster have a "reputation"? Would any claim of damage to that reputation first have to establish what the reputation was?

It raises questions such as: to what degree can an "avatar" be "injured"? Do people who post anonymously (or under an assumed name) divest themselves of the right to accuse "libel"? For some people, their real-life identity becomes closely associated with their online moniker (and they sign their real name to their posts), so this could be considered a gray area. Another gray area is someone who posts as themselves using a closely associated name, but is still somewhat veiled; "rcrocket" is somewhat descriptive, and certainly a clue toward his real identity, but not even that is enough by itself to identify who he is in real life. Obviously, Dan Peterson waives any claim to "anonymity" and is a more public figure in his own right.

In a past blog post, rcrocket made his feelings known on The Dishonor of Anonymity. But I think he overlooked some of the benefits of anonymity. For me, the greatest benefit is that I have an "ego" disassociation with what I post under a different name. It just takes the level of "seriousness" down a notch.

I post on no fewer than 12 forums discussing lots of different things, and in several of these I use my real name (or something close to it). On those forums, I tend to take disagreements much more seriously, and insults are more personal. On the forums where I post under a different name, I don't internalize the experience. If someone insults my "character", it's not like they're insulting me. Likewise, if someone praises my "character", I don't feel like they are praising me.

At most, it is like a screenwriter who gets complimented for a line of dialogue in one of his movies. Yes, he wrote it, but that doesn't mean the line is "his"; most likely the actor delivering the line (and other factors) contributed to the experience.

Likewise, if you tell an author that you absolutely hated a character in his book, the author may take it personally that you don't like his writing skills, but he shouldn't take it that you hate him personally, right?

Posting under a moniker also gives you the power to delete your persona, or just create a new moniker if you need a new "life". If someone libeled "Cinepro" the point that I couldn't stand it anymore, I would just kill "Cinepro" and come back as something else. Sure, a few people might recognize me (or I could just privately tell those people who might want to know), but message boards have very, very short memories, and eventually "Cinepro" would be just a footnote. Again, that's very different than a "real" person (or person posting under their real name).

cinepro wrote:As far as I know, "libel" isn't actionable unless it is injurious; there have to be damages.

That's also my understanding. From one site on Internet defamation:

Plaintiff must prove malice:

The plaintiff must prove that some form of damage occurred from the published statement. The damage may have been tangible losses, such as the loss of a job, financial loss, or the damage may have been intangible such as the loss of reputation and respect in a community.

cinepro wrote:To what degree can statements about an "anonymous" character on a message board be "libelous" towards that entity? If a person posts under an assumed name and persona, what exactly is being libeled?

Obviously, Dan Peterson waives any claim to "anonymity" and is a more public figure in his own right.

It seems to me that unless there is a connection to your name/real life, there is no libel, as by definition you have to prove that your reputation was harmed in order to win your case. Even if there is libel you then have to prove damages. As others have said, it's usually very difficult to win such a case. You may feel hurt, massively so, and there could have been negative consequences but it may all still not amount to actually winning a case or certainly damages.

Re DCP, right. Not being anonymous, it seems a no-brainer that he would have a good claim against anyone who slanders or libels him as he can be hurt in real life in many ways and as he has pointed out, the damage (literally) can extend to his family and even past death (kids' inheritance).

I think that one also needs to consider the same type of disclaimers that are involved in protecting your trademark. If you routinely allow slander/libel to go unchallenged perhaps you diminish your claims of outrage at any subsequent point - I mean, why did you not defend yourself here or here but suddenly you decide to launch a suit when someone else does the very same thing? I think you'd have to have a good response to that. (As with protecting a trademark - if you don't challenge every violation you could actually lose your right to it).

The above paragraph expresses my understanding and opinion of those two issues - I can't claim any legal knowledge - which may be obvious if I'm dead wrong. I know that each issue is distinct under the law but they seem similar to me in some respects.

On the anonymity question:

The Anonymity Question

To enforce laws against defamation, it is of course necessary that the identity of the defamer be known. On the Internet, however, this is often not possible; many newsgroups, chat rooms, and other forums allow participants complete anonymity. To some extent, this offers a person the opportunity to make defamatory statements without risking legal consequences. Responses to this perceived problem have included the following:

* That anonymous communication of any sort on the Internet be forbidden altogether

* That sysops be made liable for anonymous defamatory statements carried on their servers, so as to discourage facilitation of anonymous communication

* That defamation laws, since clearly unenforceable on the Internet, be discarded altogether with respect to this media

These are extreme reactions, but the more moderate suggestions that have been made are similar in principle. We hold, however, that such responses are not only impractical, but unnecessary.

The first of the above statements is undoubtedly unenforceable, especially since the Internet is an international forum. It is also, most probably, unconstitutional. The second is also dubious, since increasing sysop liability will have the similar result of restricting open speech. The third is an extreme reaction, and its logic is untenable. The fact that defamation laws will sometimes be difficult to enforce on-line ought not to mean that they should be ignored in situations where they can be enforced.

Beyond these difficulties with these positions, however, lies the simple fact that any statement made anonymously over the Internet does not carry the same potential for damage that an attributed statement would. Users who encounter anonymous defamatory statements are unlikely to take them as seriously as they would statements whose authors are willing to acknowledge them, and any resulting harm to the person defamed will therefore be greatly reduced.

Defamation and the Internet.