Ron Livingston Sues Wikipedia over Orientation

By: Omar Ha-Redeye · December 6, 2009 · Filed Under Entertainment Law, Media Law, Privacy, Technology · 2 Comments 

The most recent controversy around Wikipedia, and there are plenty to come I’m sure, surrounds Ron Livingston, an actor in Office Space who starred briefly in Sex in the City.  Well it’s Livingston’s sex, or rather his sexual orientation, that is at the center of a current dispute with Wikipedia.

Livingston married Rosmarie DeWitt last month, and yet his Wikipedia entry has been repeatedly vandalized to say that he is gay and living with a Lee Dennison.  He also claims that the same individual made Facebook pages for himself and Dennison and showed the the two in a relationship together.

TMZ states,

Livingston is suing for libel, invasion of privacy and for using his name and likeness without his permission.

Unlike blogs, which go through minimal editing and scrutiny, Wikipedia has a vigorous review process which includes questioning sources and the neutrality of a point of view.  The system seems to have worked, as the references to Livingston’s sexuality were repeatedly omitted.  The problem is that the reference was repeatedly re-entered.

Wikipedia does have controls for this as well, including how to deal with vandals and locking pages that have repeat problems.  We don’t know if this occurred yet, but Livingston could have contacted a Wikipedia editor to invoke these stronger protection mechanisms.  Any court reviewing the case should closely scrutinize the options that were available.

Blogs face a more difficult challenge.  We often try to ensure our accuracy by linking to our sources, and searching as best we can for conflicting opinions.  But especially in the field of law, information does change with new legal development and judicial decisions.  Posts are really only valid for the time-stamp when they are published.We do not benefit from the continuous and ongoing scrutiny of editors the way Wikipedia does.

For this reason, I rely on my readership to inform me when information needs to be updated.  In fact bloggers often depend on that, and most of us are usually willing to make necessary changes.  In case of litigation, we might find sanctuary under the evolving ‘public interest responsible journalism defence‘ described in the 2007 Ontario case of Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen and the 2006 House of Lord’s decision, Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe.

The wonderful thing about Wikipedia for the purposes of litigation is that everything is meticulously documented on the revision history and the talk page, including when and what changes were made, by whom, and the corresponding IP addresses.  Issues surrounding the pending litigation are even raised on the talk page among the editors, including the location of the IP addresses making the changes, and news stories about the issue.

One of the IP addresses involved in the Livingston changes also made similar revisions on December 2, 2009 to the page of Sheikh Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum of the royal family of Dubai, adding,

…as well as president for UAE LGBT conference as he is a known homosexual!.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.  But there’s no need to add personal information to Wiki entries, especially if they cannot be substantiated with an independent source, and may cause the person involves some personal harm.

In cases where the control features described above do not work, it may be appropriate to pursue litigation, possibly including the site in order to compel them to provide further information.

But the best strategy for celebrities, corporations, politicians and professionals, as I told a group of marketing professionals at a seminar earlier this week, is to mitigate any adverse impact by establishing a social media strategy yourself.

Online Reputation Management

View more presentations from Omar Ha-Redeye.
Post tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A New Media Defence

By: Kashif Ahmed · November 11, 2008 · Filed Under Media Law · Add Comment 

Canadian journalists may just breathe a little easier now. A November 2007 major ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal broke new ground in the area of defamation law when it comes to the news media in Canada.

In essence, the Ontario court decision in Cusson v. Ottawa Citizen gives the media another line of defence when it comes to defamation lawsuits and provides more freedom for the media to publish stories that they would be otherwise hesitant to publicize. The court coined what it called a “new and distinct” term — the ‘public interest responsible journalism defence.’

Canada’s age-old judicial approach to defamation suits has been to mainly look out for the reputation of the individual versus public interest debate on the issues. The new ruling is in line with those of other Commonwealth countries such as England and New Zealand — a clear support for the uninhibited exchange of information in the public’s interest.

In particular, the court’s decision follows the recent footsteps of the British House of Lords in England, where the public interest responsible journalism defence was given life in the 2007 case of Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe.

The Ontario court decision makes the public interest responsible journalism defence a new addition to the group of defamation defences in Canada, which includes truth, fair comment, qualified privilege and consent.

Justice Robert Sharpe of the appeal court wrote that, “The defence is plainly intended to shift the law of defamation away from its rigid reputation-protection stance to freer and more open discussion on matters of public interest and should be interpreted accordingly.”

For example, if a media outlet publishes a story and makes every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy and truth of its contents, the public interest responsible journalism defence would protect them in the face of a libel lawsuit, even if some of the facts of the story were incorrect.

Prior to the appeal court ruling, the qualified privilege defence was the only real plausible defence for media outlets in defamation cases. Under qualified privilege, the media in Canada is permitted to publish defamatory material within the overall framework of reasonable and accurate news of proceedings in places like provincial legislatures, Parliament, and the courts. Conversely, truth and fair comment were the only other applicable defences in all other areas of news coverage.

The reaction of the Canadian news media to the new ruling was very receptive and amenable to the legal change. Daniel Henry, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), said: “There is every reason to believe that this new decision will be considered carefully and followed in Canada’s other common law provinces.”

However, Henry also noted that “if a media organization publishes information on any matter of public interest, it can succeed [in a defamation defense claim] even if the information turns out to be defamatory and untrue, if it can convince the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the steps it took in gathering and publishing were responsible and fair.”

In all, there still remains a measured burden of responsibility on journalists and media outlets to ensure that the collection and dissemination of news information is done fairly and within reasonable journalistic practices and standards.

The decision can be read here: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2007/november/2007ONCA0771en.pdf

First published in 2007 for the Public Legal Education Association (PLEA) of Saskatchewan.

Post tags: ,