Ruling on an Internet libel claim based on a Tweet, a federal court in Massachusetts last week dismissed a plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff shipped her retired racehorse away to become a companion horse. On the way the horse vanished and was presumed destroyed. This event became the source of online discussion. In that debate, the defendant posted this disputed Tweet naming the plaintiff. “… [Y]ou are fucking crazy!”
I have been asked by prospective clients to sue over accusations of mental instability. That claim almost always fails because the court decides the statement is not one of fact, but mere opinion or hyperbole, both given First Amendment protection. Courts examine the “fact or opinion?” question in its totality, in the context in which the Internet comments were made by the defendant.
The plaintiff asserted the context in which the statement (“[Y]ou are fucking crazy”) should be viewed was the single Tweet. The court disagreed, ruling the correct context was the whole Internet debate about loss of the horse. (The judge did not elaborate, raising other questions.) He ruled the Tweet, “…was obviously intended as criticism-that is, as opinion-not as a statement of fact. The complaint therefore cannot base a claim of defamation on that statement.”
Tweets are often sent spontaneously and hurriedly. These factors can be considered in determining whether a Tweet has defamatory meaning, and in mitigation of a defendant’s defamatory internet statement. They also suggest Twitter statements may sometimes lack the defamatory meaning required for a well-founded Internet libel claim.