Do Libel Laws Apply Online?
Case: I.M.L. v. State of Utah (2002)
Act: creating a Web site containing negative statements about school officials
Charge: criminal libel; publishing false statements with cruel intent
Mr. Smith* is a town drunk and sleeping with the school’s secretary.
Mr. Gray* is a possible homosexual leading a double life.
Mrs. Nelson* is possibly addicted to speed or some other narcotic.
Ian Michael Lake (I.M.L.) was a 16-year-old junior at Milford High School in Utah in 2000. He had a 3.5 GPA and planned to run for student council. He created a Web site at home declaring the statements on page 71. A friend of Ian’s left a note in the computer lab with Ian’s Web site address on it. Complaints about the site led to a police investigation during which officers went to Ian’s home, interviewed him and his father, and took their computers. The computers were returned after being searched.
Ian told the police he created the site in response to online trash talk about one of his friends. He got carried away and added his comments about the principal and two teachers because he didn’t like them. His site contained no threats of violence or reference to any weapons. Ian was arrested and spent seven days in juvenile detention. He was charged with criminal libel in violation of Utah law.
The crime of libel is committed when a written statement is made about someone that exposes him or her to public ridicule or contempt. Courts have consistently ruled that a libelous statement becomes criminal when it’s a false statement made with actual malice. Truth is a defense to a libel charge, and the person making the statement must prove its truthfulness.
Utah’s 1876 criminal libel statute, which applied to Ian’s case, stated that “A person is guilty of libel if he intentionally and with malicious intent to injure another publishes any libel.” Ian challenged the state’s libel law claiming that it violated free speech. It didn’t require actual malice by the speaker, and it didn’t state that truth was a defense to the crime. The state argued that “actual malice” was implied in the law, and that protection for truthful statements already existed, although this was not specified in the statute.
The juvenile court denied Ian’s motion to dismiss the charge, and he and his parents appealed the denial to the Utah Supreme Court.
How Would You Decide This Case?
Are you surprised that online statements led to criminal charges against Ian? Should truth be a defense to making such statements on the Internet? How would Ian go about proving his statements are true? Even if they are true, does that make what he did okay? Do you think the situation could have been handled differently? How? When should school officials take disciplinary action versus calling the police for investigation and prosecution?
What the Court Decided
The Utah Supreme Court considered the history of libel and defamation laws in the United States dating back to the 1800s. “In this case we consider the application of a law drafted more than one hundred years ago to the most modern of preoccupations—the Internet.” The court recognized that the First Amendment never intended to protect intentional falsehoods against innocent private persons. Even if a person spoke out of hatred, the court stated that, “utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.”
However, in this case, Ian admitted that his statements were false and that he posted them intentionally to expose the faculty to public ridicule. A person that knowingly lies for the express purpose of doing harm to another, as Ian did here, cannot claim protection of the First Amendment. The court stated, “Private citizens such as school administrators and teachers are entitled to be free of such unwarranted, destructive, personal attacks.” That said, the court agreed with Ian that Utah’s libel statute was overly broad and ambiguous. It was missing essential language regarding actual malice and immunity to truthful statements. The law infringed upon protected speech by punishing statements regardless of the truth or intent of the speaker. Therefore, while Ian’s statements were outside the bounds of the First Amendment, the libel law he was accused of breaking was outside the bounds of the Constitution.
The libel charge against Ian was dismissed and Utah’s law was declared unconstitutional. The principal then filed a civil lawsuit against Ian and his parents that was settled out of court for several thousand dollars. Because this case raised a First Amendment issue, the court further commented: “To avoid chilling the exercise of vital First Amendment rights, restriction of expression must be expressed in terms which clearly inform citizens of prohibited conduct.”
How Does This Decision Affect You?
Your actions may bring unexpected consequences. Ian was not aware that he was breaking the law when he criticized his school principal and teachers, and he had no criminal intent to harm anyone through his writings. Yet consider the outcome of his postings: he spent a week in jail, he had to transfer to a new school in his senior year, his family moved away as a result of community pressure, and he was involved in a civil lawsuit costing his parents additional expense.
You can see from Ian’s case that the concept of libel is complicated. It is not easy to define or defend against, and each state has its own law that may apply to you even if you aren’t a resident there. Some states’ laws carry harsher consequences than others, as apparent in this case. In addition, Ian’s case led to a Utah state law being declared unconstitutional, an important result that will affect rulings in the state for years to come.
The bottom line: You may not be as lucky as Ian who was prosecuted under a law judged as defective by the court. You have the right to criticize others, but refrain from hateful attacks and falsehoods.
What Is Ian Doing Now?
Following his week spent in jail, Ian was released to live with his grandfather and ordered by the judge not to return to Milford, unless he was to appear in court. He graduated the following year from Palm Springs High School in California. His family also left Milford and moved to California.
Ian joined the Army and served a year in Iraq. He is now married and works as an Army recruiter in Arizona. Thinking back, he said, “I should have been punished for what I did—it was dumb—but not charged with a crime.” When asked for advice to kids about using the Internet he commented that, “Once you put something out there you can never take it back. No matter how slick you think you are, it can, and probably will be, traced back to you.”
“Lies serve no valid public purpose, and have no protected status in our public discourse.”
—from Ian Lake’s court decision
“First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive—government may regulate in the area only with narrow specificity.”
—from NAACP v. Button, U.S. Supreme Court (1963)
Related Cases
Denise E. Finkel v. Facebook & Others (New York, 2009)
Denise Finkel became the target of cyberbullies while she was a junior at Oceanside High School in New York. Four students created a chat group on Facebook called “90 Cents Short of a Dollar” describing Denise as a “woman of dubious morals and dubious sexual character.” She was portrayed as an IV drug user who participated in bestiality and who had contracted AIDS.
In March 2009, Denise sued her classmates, their parents, and Facebook for $3 million. She claimed that she was subjected to public hatred, ridicule, and disgrace. Because of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (see Federal Laws on page 18), Facebook is protected from liability as a service provider for content posted by others. Facebook was dismissed from the lawsuit in September 2009. The lawsuit remains pending against the others at the time of this book’s publication.
John Doe, through next friend Laura Cook v. R.C., A.G., K.Z., and M.S. (Illinois, 2009)
In a similar case, four teenagers in Illinois, referred to only as R.C., A.G., K.Z., and M.S., created a fake Facebook profile about an athlete at their school. They included his real name, cell phone number, and numerous photos. They posted sexual statements claiming that he had sex with other males, and comments against President Obama to make him appear racist.
In September 2009, the athlete John Doe* and his mother sued his classmates alleging defamation and severe emotional distress. They seek monetary damages and an order against the four prohibiting them from further attacks. Over 500 people saw the site before Facebook removed it. In addition to humiliation and embarrassment, the student’s academic and athletic reputation was damaged, which may affect his future. He and his family were also alienated from many of their friends. The lawsuit remains pending at the time of this book’s publication.
Katherine Evans v. Peter Bayer (Florida, 2008)
In November 2007, Katie Evans was an 18-year-old senior at Pembrokes Pines Charter High School in Florida. She was an honor student with no disciplinary record. She was upset with her English teacher, Sarah Phelps, and while at home wrote the following message on her Facebook page:
“Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met! To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred.”
Katie also added a photo of Ms. Phelps taken from the school yearbook. Three students posted comments supporting Ms. Phelps and criticizing Katie. After two days, Katie voluntarily removed the photo from Facebook. Her teacher didn’t see it and Katie remained in her class for the rest of the semester. Eventually word got out about Katie’s actions, and two months later the school principal, Peter Bayer, suspended her for three days for cyberbullying and harassing a staff member. She was pulled from her Advanced Placement classes but graduated on schedule in June 2008, and went on to college at the University of Florida.
In December 2008, Katie filed a lawsuit challenging the suspension as a violation of her freedom of speech. She was concerned about future graduate school and job applications and wanted the school to remove all mention of the suspension from her record. She recognized that being designated a “cyberbully” in an official record would be an obstacle in her life. Her lawsuit remains pending at the time of this book’s publication.
Jill Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District (Pennsylvania, 2008)
Eighth-grader Jill Snyder and her boyfriend K.L. created a fake page on MySpace that depicted Jill’s principal as a pedophile and sex addict. It included a photo of Principal James McGonigle taken from the school’s Web site. They wrote that Mr. McGonigle was a married, bisexual man whose interests included “being a tight ass,” “fucking in my office,” and “hitting on students and their parents.” They designated his Web address as “www.myspace.com/kidsrockmybed.”
Both students were suspended for 10 days. Jill filed a suit against the school for the suspension. In September 2008, a federal court upheld the school’s suspension stating that it was proper and did not violate her free speech rights. The court followed the Fraser decision (see Part 1) in authorizing school discipline for elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual content.
Things to Think About
Ian accused his principal and teachers of being alcoholics, drug users, unfaithful, and gay. He knew his statements were false, but he still beat the criminal charge of libel. Do you agree with the outcome of Ian’s case? The “due process of law” is one of your Constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and requires that you be notified of any charge filed against you and that criminal laws must be specific and understandable so you know exactly what’s prohibited. Even though Ian’s statements were libelous, the libel law was ambiguous and therefore unconstitutional. What do you think about due process, as applied in Ian’s case?
Chapter 6: Further Reading and Resources
Cybertip.ca • cybertip.ca
Canada’s national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children.
Don’t Believe the Type • netsmartz.org/RevealingTooMuch
This Web site explains how predators can use information and photos posted on social networking profiles to exploit teens. Learn how to think before you post and when to report suspicious online activity.
Carter, Edward L. “Outlaw Speech on the Internet: Examining the Link Between Unique Characteristics of Online Media and Criminal Libel Prosecutions.” Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal 21, no. 2 (January 2005): 289–318.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Students Do Leave Their First Amendment Rights at the Schoolhouse Gates: What’s Left of Tinker?” Drake Law Review 48, no. 3 (2000): 527–546.