Could a person or a newspaper get sued for defamation for posting the name of a possible suspect of a robbery?

Okay, so, we’ve got both defamation and libel going on. What is defamation? It is a damaging statement that harms a person’s reputation, deprives them of the right to enjoy social contacts, and harms their ability to work or make a living. Libel is a type of defamation (the other one is slander, but don’t worry about that one). Think of defamation as the umbrella and libel falls underneath it. Now, to win a libel lawsuit, a person bringing the lawsuit would have to prove five things:

1. The libel was published

2. The material was about the person bringing the suit (called a plaintiff)

3. The material was defamatory

4. The material was false, and 

5. The defendant (the person being sued) was at fault.

It’s important that our person in the scenario, Jake Smith, is a private, everyday person. He’s a teacher, not a public figure like Ariana Grande, who is a super famous pop star with access to the media to defend herself in such a situation. Jake just has to prove the defendant acted negligently and that the statement could’ve been avoided with due diligence. 

We’ve got our five factors. Let’s run through them in the scenario where someone commented on the Sheriff’s Office post and said “That’s Jake Smith. What did he steal?” 

First, was the libel published? Yes! It was written and posted to the internet. Second, was it about the plaintiff, Jake? Yes! It specifically mentions him. Third, is it defamatory? It depends! If Jake can prove that the post harmed his reputation, deprived him of social contacts, and harmed his ability to work, then yes! But, if he is not able to prove these things, then his claim is going to fail. Fourth, was the statement false? Well, let’s hope that Jake did not steal from the church. If he did, his entire lawsuit fails because the truth is always a defense to libel. If he did not steal from the church, then he wins this factor. Finally, is the defendant at fault? For Jake, a private person, he has to prove that making the post was easily avoidable.

So, all in all, we think a libel lawsuit could be pretty successful, but it depends. It usually does! 

Now let’s figure out how this applies to a newspaper’s post. . . .

With the invention of the internet and the seemingly endless list of apps people can download on their iPhones, the government decided to write the Communications Decency Act, which governs all sorts of technological stuff. For our purposes, we are looking at Section 230, which covers whether or not a newspaper can be held liable for users’ online comments. The short answer is generally no, but there are exceptions. 

First, if the newspaper is providing the content online and users can select from options, then that could cause the paper to be held liable. An example is our poll from earlier: “Who is the robber of the church? A) Jake Smith, B) Peter Brown, or C) Leon Doe.” People are being named here and the newspaper is providing the content, not the users. But even if it was an open-ended question such as “Who is the robber of the church?” that is still inviting people to make libelous statements. Tread carefully and be mindful of what you post online! This goes for both newspaper websites and users adding comments.

Second, if Jake asked the newspaper to remove a libelous statement from its Facebook page and the newspaper did not, then the newspaper could be sued. By not removing the post, the newspaper is essentially republishing it. If someone asked the newspaper to remove the post, then the newspaper should remove it and look into the matter. If the information turns out to be true, then the post can be put back up at the paper’s discretion without fearing a libel lawsuit. 

Also, we should make it clear that if a libelous statement is printed in a newspaper, the newspaper can be held liable even if the quote is coming from someone else and not the paper or a reporter. Why? Because while the newspaper did not make the statement, it published the statement. Reporters have to check whether the information is true before they write and publish their stories. See the difference between a user’s post on Facebook and content printed in a newspaper? 

We also mentioned that a false light claim is a possibility! 

A false light claim is an invasion of privacy claim where a person is saying that they were cast in a “false light” or falsely implicated as doing something that would harm their reputation. To prove a false light claim in this church robbery situation, Jake would have to prove:

1. The false light was published and people can identify the plaintiff

2. The false light was actually false 

3. The false light is highly offensive to the average person, and 

4. The defendant must have knowledge, or acted in reckless disregard, of the truth and the false light in which the plaintiff would be place 

First, the picture of the man was posted along with comments, and people could connect Jake along with the comments. This factor leans in favor of Jake and false light. Second, as long as Jake didn’t actually rob the church, then he would win the second factor. If he did, well, that’s certainly a huge bummer and also no good for Jake’s false light claim! Third, being linked to a crime is pretty offensive to the average person, so this one is not hard to satisfy. 

But, we are hung up on the fourth factor here. The Sheriff’s Office specifically posted about looking for information about a crime, not that the person shown in the photo actually committed the crime. The original post is not accusatory at all and the Sheriff’s Office is not acting in reckless disregard here. So, we think Jake would not win the fourth factor and not be successful in his false light lawsuit.