Noonan v. Staples

Recently, the first circuit opened the door for libel claims in Massachusetts where the published statement is true. Noonan v. Staples Robert Ambrogi wrote a piece dissecting the court's reasoning and I won't reiterate what he said. But I am concerned about the implications this might have in society.

Ultimately, this case indicated that plaintiffs could recover for damages in the commonwealth if they could prove that the statements were aired with "actual malice." And not the "actual malice" the Supreme Court outlined in Sullivan v. New York Times, where a publisher knew statements were false but printed them anyway, but a kind that is meant to intentionally harm the reputation of another. This is a frightening precedent.

Essentially what I'm afraid the first circuit has done, in relying on a 106-year-old statute, is create a means to recovery for individuals to sue to recover for retelling true stories that are out of context. What's so frightening about this precedent is how it could affect the internet community. Imagine if you will what the implications this will have for sites like YouTube.com and Failblog.org, where embarassing videos and pictures are digital gold. If this mother is allowed to recover from the owners of the Fail Blog, then there is seriously something wrong the state of defamation law in this country.