Edgy seems not to understand the law.
In one threshold issue, Edgy quotes posts that are over a year old. Ole Edge must not be up to speed on a recent 2004 court case in California that holds the ONE YEAR statues of limitations for defamation claims applies to Internet posts.
Media Law Reporter
Volume: 32 Number: 21
May 25, 2004
Statute of Limitations Defense Viable Under Calif. Anti-SLAPP Law
The statute of limitations is a viable argument in support of a special motion to strike brought pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, ruled May 6 in an opinion certified for partial publication. Finding that the plaintiffs' defamation claims based on allegedly defamatory Internet postings were barred by the single publication rule, the court holds that the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion to strike (Traditional Cat Ass'n v. Gilbreath, Cal. Ct. App., No. D041421, 5/6/04, partially unpub.).
A lawsuit between rival cat breeder organizations, filed by Diana Fineran against John Herold and others, led Herold to establish a Web site to monitor the litigation. Statements Herold posted to that Web site were highly critical of Fineran. Offended by the statements, The Traditional Cat Association and Fineran responded by filing a separate lawsuit against Herold and various co-defendants, alleging defamation and other causes of action.
Herold filed a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statute. He contended that TTCA brought the lawsuit more than one year after Herold last altered the Web page on which the disputed statements appeared. Because a one-year statute of limitations on defamation claims applies in California, Herold argued, the action is time-barred.
The trial court disagreed, and denied the motion to strike. Herold established that he made his statements in furtherance of his free speech rights, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff to establish a probability of prevailing. The court refused to consider the statute of limitations defense, interpreting the anti-SLAPP law to allow for constitutional defenses only. Herold appealed.
Anti-SLAPP Ruling Incorrect.
The court of appeal reversed, finding the issue of timeliness to be a valid argument in support of a motion to strike brought under the anti-SLAPP statute.
"In determining whether a plaintiff has demonstrated the requisite probability of prevailing, section 425.16, subdivision (b)(2), requires that the court 'consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based,' " the court said. "Thus on its face the statute contemplates consideration of the substantive merits of the plaintiff's complaint, as well as all available defenses to it, including, but not limited to constitutional defenses," the court reasoned.
Single Publication Rule Applies.
On appeal, TTCA argued that the defamation claim is not time-barred. There was no lapse in time, the plaintiffs reasoned, in essence arguing that each day the site was up constituted a republication of the material.
According to the court, California has adopted the "single-publication rule." Under that rule, publication occurs, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when the defendant makes the first general distribution of the publication to the public, the court explained.
Absent any California case law applying the single-publication rule to statements made on a Web site, the court looked to Firth v. New York, 747 N.Y.S.2d 69, 30 Med.L.Rptr. 2085 (2002). There, the New York Court of Appeals, citing massive litigation risks caused by the "endless retriggering of the statute of limitations," rejected applying a multiple publication rule to the Internet. Instead, it held that the single-publication rule applies to statements posted on a Web site, and affirmed a dismissal of a defamation action on grounds that it was time-barred.
"We find the reasoning of the court in Firth v. New York persuasive," associate justice Patricia D. Benke wrote. "[T]he need to protect Web publishers from almost perpetual liability for statements they make available to the hundreds of millions of people who have access to the Internet is greater even than the need to protect the publishers of conventional hard copy newspapers, magazines and books," she reasoned.
Applying the single publication rule to Herold's statements, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' defamation claim was time-barred because TTCA filed its complaint more than one year after Herold last altered the Web site on which the statements appeared. The court reversed the trial court's denial of Herold's motion to strike, and remanded for entry of an order striking the claim.
The full text of Traditional Cat Ass'n v. Gilbreath will be published in an upcoming issue of Media Law Reporter.
YAWN, and Edgy quotes non-defamatory posts that are MORE THAN ONE YEAR OLD. Diddy lives in California. SO, for what purpose do you post such, Edgy?
AI
