Defamation laws are becoming more difficult to define as people of all ages start taking up a web presence, blurring the lines between private and public figuredom.

In the past, watchdog journalists were only concerned with the inner lives of public figures, but in the social media age, it seems everyone with an online profile has been made fair game for the press.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the case that originally defined defamation law and public figure doctrine, stated that for a statement to be libelous against a public figure, a person must be proven to have acted in “actual malice” instead of the simple negligence afforded to private individuals.

By expanding the definition of defamation laws, the court was hoping to protect free speech and avoid censoring the public opinion on debate issues.

Now that people are using social media as an extension of their most private thoughts, the fear of being exposed to a wider audience unwillingly might end up killing the kind of vigorous policy debate that we should be encouraging.

We won’t have a clear definition of what constitutes a public figure in this new medium of communication until the courts are brought a relevant case.

There have been a few recent cases of defamation, which show that publishing our free-flowing thought streams can have serious consequences.

In 2011, Courtney Love was forced into a settlement of $430,000 after defaming fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir in a 20-minute rant posted on Twitter.

In addition to destroying the egos of self-professed “social media gurus” everywhere, a clear definition of what constitutes a public figure online could significantly change the way we engage with the media.

It would either force users to dive deeper into anonymity, which would potentially create a more slanderous environment, or it may convince people to leave social media sites altogether, thereby limiting free public speech.

Another issue we should be grappling with in new media journalism is deciding what protection minors would have under the law.

In the case of D.C. v. R.R., a high school student sued for defamation after he was threatened and called derogatory homosexual slurs on a website for his entertainment career.

The court expressed fears of granting public-figure status based on Internet access alone, which would incidentally make millions of teenagers public figures.

But in most cases, the “Wild West” of the Internet seems to have a way of defining its own justice system, even if the ethical lines are still unclear.

In aJezebel article published November 2012 after President Barack Obama’s election, the author invited public shame on several minors who tweeted overtly racist thoughts by publishing their full names and the location of their high schools.

While the author was intending to make a point — that racism is wrong and hateful language has consequences — she was also exposing the identities and locations of minors, which, at least in criminal cases, journalists would have traditionally protected.

Until the legal dust has settled and we can see where the lines are drawn, it’s best to abide by the old world platitude: if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

Kat Smith is a senior creative advertising major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected] or by telepathy, if possible. 

Published on February 14, 2013 at 1:08 am