Date: September 11, 2013 To: Dr.

Maria Moore From: Alicia Ogierman Regarding: Damage to Reputation

The Facts of the Case: In February of 2009, a well-known Clarksville, Texas couple named Mark and Rhonda Lesher filed for defamation against an online community news site called Topix.com. The website allows Internet users to anonymously comment on discussion boards regarding news articles. In April of 2008, the couples own personal legal case became the talk of the website. The Leshers were accused of sexual assault at their ranch. According to the petition, the defamatory website comments arose almost immediately, labeling the couple as sexual deviants, molesters, and drug dealers (DMLP Staff, 2009). In January of 2009, the sexual assault case against the Leshers was found not guilty on all counts. The couple then filed a defamatory suit against the anonymous Topix posters, identifying that the comments affected their reputations in the community as businesspersons and [had] significantly damaged their businesses as well as [creating] psychological, emotional and financial trauma (DMLP Staff, 2009). The affect of the online comments drove Rhonda Lesher to close her salon and also caused a decrease in the number of clients Mark Lesher was receiving at his legal firm (Betz, 2012). The Leshers petitioned for the judge to release the Internet addresses of the 178 anonymous posters. When this was granted, one of the IP addresses led back to a salvage yard owned by the Coyels. A jury ruled against Jerry Coyel, his wife, Shannon, and one of their employees and ordered them to pay the Leshers $13.75 million dollars in defamatory damages. After the judge reviewed the jurys decision, she overturned it determining that the Leshers could not prove that the IP addresses which they were suing were directly linked to the comments of defamatory nature.

Legal Principles: While the Leshers case came close to winning, it was missing one crucial element that is necessary to prove defamation, the principle known as fault. The manner of determining who was directly responsible for the libelous messages were not conclusive enough simply by locating an IP Internet addresses. Therefore, naming the Coyels responsible for the defamation was not acceptable, leading to the overturned verdict. Although the individuals may have taken part in the Topix discussion, there was not a clear way to link their one IP address directly to those defamatory messages that involved 178 anonymous posters. While this case did not meet the fault standard, it did coincide with every other element of defamation including; content, falsity, publication, identification, and harm/compensation. The defamatory content is

used to describe written or spoken words that are used to directly affect another individuals standing. For the Leshers, the discussion on Topix.com was a direct call out on their personal integrity. The words used to describe the couple such as sexual deviants, molesters, and drug dealers could not be more defamatory when noting that all descriptions are not only not factual but degrading. The element of falsity is also inevitably inherent in this case. Regardless of the accusations of sexual assault against the Leshers in 2008, in 2009 the couple was found not guilty on all counts. This makes the Topix comments in fact, false and in fact, defamatory. In order for a case to be considered one of defamation, the content needs to be published, whether it is through broadcast or written format. The Leshers were not going after the provider of the Internet computer service, Topix.com, but the sites anonymous posters. In cases of Internet publication, the provider cannot be treated as the publisher of the messages, thus the responsibility is in the hands of the individual posters. Hence, the couple petitioning for the IP addresses of all 178 posters to be revealed. Identification is yet another crucial part in proving defamation. If the individual is not identified either explicitly or in a suggestive manner, there would be no way for the defamatory content to be linked back to that person. The Topix website is one that displays news articles and allows for the Internet community to discuss anonymously. Therefore, the clear identification of the Lesters was released due to the listing of the case that was proceeding over them for sexual assault. Then, this information was used to trace the couple back to their home town and back to their jobs. Whether the element of harm is the most direct affect of defamation or not, it is one that holds very true to the Lesher case. The legal principle of harm/compensation is explained as damages that can be physical/economic or mental. The couple released statements expressing the damage the comments made to their person businessperson identity and to their actual business which caused emotional distress. A need for compensation can be directly linked to Rhonda Lesher closing down her salon and Mark Lesher loosing business clients.

My Analysis: For some to say that this case could have been the largest award (or almost award) for one involving defamatory and then getting overturned is remarkable. It is a perfect example which highlights how even though it may be the end for the Leshers, this is only the beginning for cases of this nature involving internet defamation. With our society completely turning to Internet for every source of our life, it is only natural that our laws go there too. Currently, shown through this example, case law in this regard seems unclear, uncharted but upcoming. When thinking of online defamation cyber bullying comes to mind. Due to recent cases, sometimes even involving a death caused by this online trash-talking, our case law has gotten strict on the issue, where ten years ago laws of this nature were unheard of. As our society is becoming completely Internet engulfed crimes of this nature are more likely to happen with serious consequences. What needs to happen is case law that follows up on it. Internet users cannot even trust Facebook or Twitter anymore due to fake account. This goes hand-in-hand

with identifying users from anonymous chat rooms or critical discussion sites like Topix. People can sit behind their computer and commit cyber-bully and internet defamation/libel. It will be interesting to note when these cases of internet defamation will take center stage. I expect it to require further case law but for now, the case involving the Leshers laid a good foundation for interpreting the current caw law correctly. Personally, this case seems as uncharted territory so that alone was of great interest to me. It is ironic to think that the facet of Internet is so prevalent in our society but it seems as if case law has not completely tackled all issues of crime involving it. In terms of agreeing or disagreeing with the overturned verdict, I cant help but agree. I do not understand how the verdict was originally to have one single IP address charged for the defamation of the Leshers when there was a total of 178 addresses. There must have been convincing evidence for the jury to have identified this one address and household as the sole sources for the wrongdoing. Overall, I think that the legal process of identifying anonymous Internet posters needs to be smoothed out. In the end, someone should have been responsible, right?

References Betz, Jonathan. "Couple Awarded $13 Million in Defamation Case Say Laws Must Change." WFAA 8. WFAA-TV, Inc., 27 Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2013. <http://www.wfaa.com/ news/local/Cleaning-Up-a-Dirty-Online-Reputation- 149328735.html>. DMLP Staff. "Lesher v. Topix." Digital Media Law Project. Digital Media Law Project, Inc., 11 March 2009. Web. 11 Sept. 2013. <http://www.dmlp.org/threats/lesher-v-topix# description>. Schechter, David. "Judge Throws out $14 Million Internet Libel Case." WFAA 8. WFAA-TV, Inc., 13 June 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2013. <http://www.wfaa.com /news/local/Judge-throws -out-14-million-dollar-internet-libel-case-158959825.html>.