Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC is a case where the Sixth United States Circuit Court of Appeals adopts the Roommates material development test to limit immunity. under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). A libel suit was pursued by Sarah Jones, formerly a high school teacher and Cincinnati Ben-Gals cheerleader, against the owner of the Dirah World celebrity gossip website LLC (Dirty World), TheDirty.com, about two posts on TheDirty.com that Dirty World refuses to remove.
Video Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC
​​â € <â €
TheDirty.com is a website, founded by Nik Richie, which publishes anonymous gossip from site users. In October and December 2009, two papers describe Jones and accuse him of multiple partners and infect others with sexually transmitted diseases. Each post is written by the user of the site and anonymously linked to "The Dirty Army". An editorial note by Richie added and signed "nik". Jones sent some e-mails to Richie to request the shipment to be removed. Richie refused, even after Jones hired a lawyer and threatened the lawsuit.
Jones filed a lawsuit in federal district court on December 14, 2009, accusing defamation, slander, false light, and the deliberate suffering of emotional distress under state lawsuits. Jones is a resident of Northern Kentucky, a teacher at Dixie Heights High School in Edgewood, Kentucky and a member of the cheerleading squad of the Cincinnati Bengals professional football team. Jones was originally brought in line with the Gross Entertainment World Record, and in August 2010, was granted a default valuation of $ 11 million when the defendant failed to answer the lawsuit. It was later revealed that the plaintiff had mistakenly sued the wrong company: The Dirty World Entertainment record operates "TheDirt.com," while the offending site operator ("TheDirty.com") is named DirtyWorldLLC. Jones then filed a modified complaint including Dirty World, LLC.
Richie and Dirty World moved to refuse cases due to lack of personal jurisdiction, and for judgment as a legal matter, claiming that Section 230 of the CDA gave the Dirty World, as an interactive computer service provider, immunity from the suit on material written by third parties and published on the site the web. The district court rejected this movement, concluding that the publisher, by "ratifying or adopting the post" with the addition of comments and further material invitations would lose their immunity. The trial ended with a cancellation of the trial after the jury was hanged, but Jones won at the second trial, winning $ 338,000 in combined compensation and punitive damages. Richie and Dirty World appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Parallel Developments
In an unusual turn of events, while his lawsuit remains pending, on March 29, 2012, plaintiff Sarah Jones was indicted by a grand County Kenton jury accusing him of alleged crimes of "First-degree sexual harassment" and "Unlawful use of electronic means to induce children a minor to engage in sexual activity or any other illicit activity ". On October 8, 2012, Sarah Jones pleaded guilty to custodial detention and misconduct of sexual misconduct. He was given a two-year sentence, but did not have to serve at any time if he followed his probation for five years. Mrs. Jones, former principal of Cheryl Armstrong Jones, also pleaded guilty to allegations of violation for attempts to undermine evidence. He confessed to the judge that he sent a teenage text message telling him to get rid of his phone and also avoid jail terms. The teenager publicly identified herself as 18-year-old Cody York. On the same day Jones pleaded guilty in his criminal cases, Jones told the Kentucky civil court that he was ready to pursue a 2009 lawsuit against TheDirty.com. "Sarah Jones is only looking for damage before her relationship with [high school students]," wrote lawyer Eric Deters in a court filing for a trial in January 2013. "Thedirty.com's behavior and reputation since the time of the pollution are intact, not looking for damage for this time period or in the future. "
Maps Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC
Appeal
On July 15, 2013, the defendants filed the appeal on time. District court judge William O. Bertelsman submitted the Memorandum of Opinion to further elaborate his decision. The case raises great interest in the reputation management industry, as this is the first time CDA has not been accepted as a defense. Many are concerned that Jones's successful lawsuit opens the door to flooding similar lawsuits. Some amicus briefs are brought to justice:
- Amicus brief by various CDA supporters: ACLU, EFF, CDT, DMLP, PPP, Wendy Seltzer and Adam Holland.
- Short Amicus by online service providers: Advanced Publications, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Avvo, Inc., Buzzfeed, Inc., Cable News Network, Inc., Curbed.com LLC, Gawker Media, LLC, Publisher Magazine America, Inc., The McClatchy Company, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, TripAdvisor LLC, Yahoo! Inc., and Yelp Inc.
- Amicus is brief by various interactive computer services: AOL, Inc., eBay, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google, Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Microsoft Corp., Tumblr, Inc., Twitter, Inc., and Zynga Inc.
- Amicus brief
- Appeals from United States District Court
Opinion
On June 16, 2014, the Sixth Circuit vacated the decision of the district court with instructions to enter the verdict as a legal matter in favor of the Dirty World. The Sixth Circuit states that the district court incorrectly applies the "adoption or ratification test" and instead adopts a material donation test from the San Justice Board of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC. The Court noted, "... the determination of immunity under the CDA should be resolved at an early stage of litigation," having previously noted in the opinion that lower courts have denied the World Dirty movement to dismiss, motion for conclusions assessment, motion to correct judgments, assessment as a legal matter, as well as their motion to go for an interlocutory appeal.
On August 15, 2014, the court ordered Jones to pay the charges to the defendants in the amount of $ 6,274.42.
See also
- personal jurisdiction
- Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
- Section 230 of the Communications Decisions Act
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments