Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC

Citations: 840 F. Supp. 2d 1008; 40 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1153; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2525; 2012 WL 70426Docket: Civil Action No. 09-219-WOB

Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky; January 9, 2012; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A defamation and invasion-of-privacy case involves defendants Hooman Karamian (a/k/a Nik Richie) and his companies, Dirty World, LLC and Dirty World Entertainment, LLC, operators of the website "the dirty.com." The plaintiff, Sarah Jones, a Kentucky resident and teacher, alleges that defamatory posts about her were published on the site. The defendants acknowledge that the posts are facially defamatory and privacy-violating. 

On October 27, 2009, a visitor posted derogatory comments about Jones, claiming she had inappropriate relationships with football players. Jones requested the removal of the post, but her request was ignored after an initial acknowledgment. A subsequent post on December 7, 2009, made further defamatory claims about Jones, prompting another request for removal from her, which also went unanswered. 

Richie contributed to the defamatory discourse by questioning the character of high school teachers. The plaintiff detailed the detrimental impact of these posts on her professional and personal life. The defendants assert absolute immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, which protects providers of interactive computer services from liability for third-party content. The Court noted a prior ruling affirming personal jurisdiction over the defendants and referenced case law outlining the CDA's protective provisions.

Immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is granted to interactive computer service providers only if they are not classified as "information content providers," defined as those responsible for creating or developing offensive content. Defendants assert that they deserve absolute immunity because they merely host public comments without contributing to the content's creation. The Sixth Circuit has not defined the threshold for "creation or development," but the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have provided persuasive cases. In Roommates.com, the court denied immunity because the site required users to provide discriminatory information, thereby becoming a content developer. Similarly, in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Accusearch, the court ruled that a service provider can be deemed "responsible" for offensive content if it specifically encourages its development. This rationale is accepted as the correct interpretation of CDA immunity. 

In the case at hand, the content of the "dirty.com" website is deemed offensive and tortious, constituting libel per se under common law without the need for proving malice or damages. Libelous statements include accusations of crimes, imputation of unchastity, claims of loathsome diseases, or any statements damaging to a person's reputation or business. Defamation liability requires a false and defamatory statement, publication to a third party, negligence by the publisher, and either inherent actionability or special harm from the statement.

The tort of defamation, as established in common law, is based on strict liability, meaning that if a statement is found to be defamatory, the defendant's intent or care taken prior to publication is irrelevant. Under Kentucky law, a private individual must prove negligence to recover damages from a media defendant. It is broadly accepted that allegations of sexual misconduct or immorality are inherently libelous. In this case, the plaintiff was portrayed in a manner suggesting involvement in a divorce scandal and sexual promiscuity, which could be deemed defamatory regardless of the truth of some allegations. 

Defendant Richie, as the developer of the content on “the dirty.com,” played a significant role in promoting the offensive nature of the site. His actions included selecting a small percentage of posted submissions, adding taglines, and failing to verify the accuracy of the content. He also made personal comments on postings, contributing to the defamatory implications against the plaintiff. Richie's comments indicated a disdainful view of the subject matter, and he openly encouraged participation from the site's audience, referred to as "the Dirty Army." His management style and personal remarks substantiate the court's conclusion that he specifically fostered the development of offensive content on the site.

Encouragement of posting content is evident in the phrase directed at followers, "I love how the Dirty Army has war mentality." The Court concludes that the defendants lack immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Consequently, the Court orders the following: 1. Denial of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law; 2. Scheduling of a jury trial for June 4, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.; 3. A final pretrial conference set for May 11, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., with a directive for compliance with the Court's standard final pretrial order. Additionally, there is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress included in the case. The Court notes that it will reserve judgment on the defendants’ claim that some statements may be classified as non-defamatory opinions. Relevant legal references include the case Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC, and scholarly works regarding the scope of Section 230 of the CDA.