Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:03:21.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electronic Miscommunication and the Defamatory Sense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Jacquelyn Burkell  and
Ian R. Kerr
Jacquelyn Burkell
Affiliation:
Faculty of Information and Media StudiesUniversity of Western Ontario, London (Ontario)Canada N6A3K7, [email protected]
Ian R. Kerr
Affiliation:
Faculty of LawUniversity of Ottawa, P.O.B. 450, Station A, Ottawa (Ontario), Canada K1N 6N5, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the effect that cultural and technological changes have had on interpersonal communication and aims to provide an interdisciplinary explanation for the recent proliferation of defamation in electronic media. The authors argue that the absence of certain extra-linguistic cues and established cultural convention in the electronic environment often results in miscommunication which — if not itself defamatory — gives rise to emotional exchanges between interlocutors in a manner that provokes defamation. The authors begin their analysis with a discussion of defamation law as a recipient-oriented tort, demonstrating the importance of the context of communication in the determination of whether a particular remark carries a defamatory sense. In order to better understand how an online communication is received and understood by its recipients, the authors then investigate three differences between electronic and other media of communications: i) that the technology-mediated and text-bases character of electronic communication makes the process of communication more difficult and the incidence of miscommunication more likely; ii) that the nature of social interaction in the online setting has a tendency to increase hostile communications that might be considered defamatory; iii) that the cultural context and standards of communication that develop in online communities will reduce the significance of these hostile communications. Applying these considerations to the law of defamation, the authors conclude by rejecting the naive point of view that a libel published through the Internet ought to be dealt with in exactly the same way that a libel published in a newspaper is dealt with. The authors end by calling for further empirical research about the content that is produced as a consequence of contextual challenges in electronic communication.

Résumé

Cet article analyse l'effet de changements culturels et technologiques sur la communication personnelle et vise à donner une explication interdisciplinaire de la récente prolifération de cas de diffamation dans les médias électroniques. Les auteurs posent que l'absence de certains signaux extra-linguistiques et de conventions culturelles dans l'environnement électronique mène souvent à une mauvaise communication qui – si elle n'est pas diffamatoire en soi — fait monter l'émotivité des interlocuteurs de manière à provoquer des échanges diffamatoires. Les auteurs discutent d'abord de la législation contre la diffamation en tant que tort orienté vers le destinataire et démontrent l'importance du contexte pour déterminer si le sens d'une remarque particulière est diffamatoire. Pour mieux appréhender comment une communication en ligne est reçue et comprise par ses destinataires, les auteurs abordent trois différences entre médias électroniques et autres: (1) le fait que les communications électroniques sont sous forme de textes et médiatisées par la technologie rend le processus plus difficile et la mauvaise communication plus probable; (2) ce type d'interaction sociale en ligne accroît tendanciellement les communications hostiles sinon diffamatoires; (3) le contexte culturel des communautés en ligne qui développent des standards de communication réduiront la portée des échanges hostiles. Appliquant ces dimensions au droit contre la diffamation, les auteurs concluent en rejetant le point de vue naïf selon lequel on devrait traiter de la même manière un libelle publié sur Internet ou dans un journal. D'autres recherche empiriques seront nécessaires sur le contenu produit face au défi contextuel de la communication électronique.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , April 2000 , pp. 81 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See Rindos v. Hardwick, [1994] ACL Rep. 145 WA 4 (Sup. Ct.).

3 W. Shakespeare, Othello, The Moor of Venice, Act III scene iii.

4 There is perhaps a larger and perhaps more important question – namely, whether a uniform approach to defamation might be formulated at the global level. Although a comprehensive response to the larger question is beyond the scope of the present inquiry, this investigation of the common law approach serves as a useful point of departure.

5 See e.g. Easterbrook, F.H., “Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse” (1996) U. Chi. Legal F. 207.Google Scholar

6 Martin, R., Media Law (Concord, On: Irwin Law, 1997) at 2.Google Scholar

7 McLuhan, M., Understanding Media (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964) at 9.Google Scholar

8 Neill, S.D., Clarifying McLuhan: An Assessment of Process and Product (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1993) at 58.Google Scholar

9 Supra note 7 at 7.

10 Recent online defamation cases in Canada include: Braintech v. Kostiuk (1999), 171 (4,h) D.L.R. 46; Investors Group v. Hudson, [1998] Q.J. No. 4543, online: QL (CJ); Reform Party of Canada v. Western Union Insurance (1999) 3 C.R.R. (4th) 289; Direct Energy Marketing v. Hillson, (1999) 72 Alta L.R. (3d) 140; Gouveia v. The Toronto Star, (1998) O.T.C. 186; Southam v. Chelekis, [2000] B.C.J. No 314, online: QL (CJ); see also, Campbell, K.K., “ISP's Buckling Under” The Toronto Star (27 April 2000)Google Scholar; Gombu, P., “Chat Room Lawsuit Challenges Net Rules” The Toronto Star (25 March 2000)Google Scholar; Skelton, C. & Hogben, D., “E-Mail Suit Covers New Ground” The Edmonton Sun (20 October 1999) 59Google Scholar; Staff Reporter, “Hydro Deal Released a Settlement 2000 Years in the Making” The London Free Press (4 August 1999) A9. There are also a number of recently reported cases in the U.K., see e.g. Godfrey v. Demon Internet, [1999] All E.R. 342; Irving v. Penguin Books, [2000] E.W.J. No. 1897, online: QL (UKJ); Berezovsky v. Michaels,[2000] H.L.J. No. 24, online: QL (UKJ); see also D. O'Brien, “The Net Closes In” Times Newspaper (7 May 2000) Features; F. Gibb, “Russian Free to Sue in Britain” Times Newspapers (12 May 2000) Home news; Ruairi, T. M., “Jailed For Gay Lies on the Net: First Case in Ireland of Cyber Libel Against Teacher ‘School Nerd’s’ Web of Deceit” The Mirror (21 December 1999) A1.Google Scholar For American cases see, e.g., Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve, 776 F Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Stratton Oakmont, v. Prodigy Services, [1995] WL 323710, 63 U.S.L.W. 2765, 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), online: WL (Allcases); It's In the Cards v. Fuschetto, 193 Wis.2d 429 (Wis. C.A. 1995); Zeran v. America Online, 958 F.Supp. 1124 (Va. Dist. Ct. 1997); Lunny v. Prodigy Services, 250 A.D. 2d. 230, 683 N. Y.S. 2d 557 (Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1998); Doe v. America Online, 729 So.2d 390 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1999); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D.C. Dist. Ct. 1998); Mallinckrodt Medical v. Sonus Pharmaceuticals, 989 F.Supp. 265 (D.C. Dist. Ct. 1998).

11 From the New Hacker's Dictionary, online: Elsewhere http://www.elsewhere.Org/jargon/jargon_21.html#SEC28 (date accessed: 14 June 2000).

12 Knight, J., “Free Speech Collides with Cyberspace” Washington Post (21 November 1994) 19.Google Scholar

13 Anonymous e-mail quoted in Dery, M., “Flame Wars” (1993) 92 South Atlantic Q. 559 at 560.Google Scholar

14 See e.g. J. Talmadge, “The Flamer's Bible”, online: Rec. Humor. Funny Homepage http://www.netfunny.eom/rhf/jokes/88q1/13785.8.html (last modified: 16 August 1999).

15 Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 at 92 (1966).

16 Brown, R.E., The Law of Defamation in Canada, vol. 2 (Toronto: Carswell, 1994) at 1.Google Scholar

17 Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada, vol. 2 (Toronto: Carswell, 1990) at 141.Google Scholar

18 Lidsky, L.B., “Defamation, Reputation, and the Myth of Community” (1996) 71 Wash L. Rev. 1 at 11.Google Scholar

19 Franklin, M.A. & Bussel, D.J., “The Plaintiff's Burden in Defamation: Awareness and Falsity” (1984) 25 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 825 at 828.Google Scholar

20 See e.g. Hulton v. Jones, [1909] 2 K.B. 44, aff'd [1910] A.C. 20 (H.L.); Mack v. North Hill News (1964), 46 W.W.R. 254 (Alta. S.C.); Jones v. Bennett (1968), 63 W.W.R. 1 (B.C.C.A).

21 Per Street A.C.J. in Rofe v. Smith's Newspapers (1924), 25 S.R. (N.S.W.) 4 at 17.

22 MacDonald v. Mail Printing (1901), 2 O.L.R. 278 at 282–83 (C.A.).

23 Parmiter v. Coupland (1840), 6 M. & W. 105 at 108; Youssoupoffv. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures (1934), 50 T.L.R. 581 (C.A).

24 Polygram Records v. Superior Court, 216 Cal. Rptr. 252 (Ct. App. 1985).

25 Ibid. at 261.

26 Ibid.

27 Lidsky, supra note 18 at 14.

28 Post, R.C., “The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution” (1986) 74 Cal. L. Rev. 691 at 710–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Lidsky, supra note 18 at 37.

30 See e.g. O'Malley v. O'Callaghan (1992), 1 Alta. L.R. (3d) 88 (Q.B.); Crandall v. Atlantic School of Theology (1993), 120 N.S.R. (2d) 219 (S.C.).

31 Per Weltner J. in Anderson v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance, 251 Ga. 556, 307 S.E. 2d 499 at 500 (1983).

32 Per Clement J.A. in Fraser v. Sykes, [1971] 3 W.W.R. 161 at 166 (Alta. C.A.), aff'd [1974] 1 S.C.R. 526.

33 Sometimes known as Netiquette. See online: What is Usenet? <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1> (last modified: 29 December 1999).

34 See online: What is Listserv? http://members.aol.com/Shugosha/listserv.htm#Whatis (last modified: 17 February 1998).

35 See Lessig, L., “The Path of Cyberlaw” (1995) 104 Yale L.J. 1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Fillmore, C., “Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse” in Cole, P., ed., Radical Pragmatics (New York: Academic Press, 1981) at 152.Google Scholar

37 Clark, H., Using Language (Cambridge: University Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Ibid. at 9.

39 As is the case, for example, in simultaneous translation, where the self-determined speech of one person completely controls what a second person says.

40 Atkinson, J.M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

41 Bavelas, J.B. & Chovil, N., “Faces in Dialogue” in Russel, J. & Fernández-Dols, J.M., eds., The Psychology of Facial Expression (Paris: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Swann, W.B. Jr., “Quest for Accuracy in Person Perception: A Matter of Pragmatics” (1984) 91 Psychol. R. 457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43 Tett, R.P. & Palmer, C.A., “The Validity of Handwriting Elements in Relation to Self-Report Personality Trait Measures” (1997) 22:1Pers. Indiv. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 See Turkle, S., Life on the Screen (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995) at 178.Google Scholar

45 K. Rivera, N.J. Cooke & J.A. Bauhs, “The Effects of Emotional Icons on Remote Communication” (CHI'96 Conference Proceedings on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, B.C., 13–18 April 1996), online: CHI 96 Electronic Proceedings <http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/intpost/Rivera/rk_txt.htm> (date accessed: 14 June 2000).

46 Grammar, K., “Strangers Meet: Laughter and Nonverbal Signs of Interest in Opposite-Sex Encounters” (1990) 14:4J. NonVerbal Behav. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Dodge, K.A. & Somberg, D.R., “Hostile Attribution Biases Among Aggressive Boys Are Exacerbated Under Conditions of Threats To the Self” (1987) 58 Child. Dev. 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Thompsen, P.A. & Foulger, D.A., “Effects of Pictographs and Quoting on Flaming Electronic Mail” (1996) 12:2Computers in Human Behavior 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 For a discussion of the various forms of anonymity, see Scott, C.R., “To Reveal Or Not To Reveal: A Theoretical Model of Anonymous Communication” (1998) 8:4Comm. Theory 381.Google ScholarPubMed

50 Solomon, H., “Anonymity and Helping” (1981) 113:1J. Soc. Psych. 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Ellison, P.A. et al. , “Anonymity and Aggressive Driving Behavior: A Field Study” (1995) 10:1Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 265Google Scholar; Rehm, J., Steinleitner, M. & Lilli, M., “Wearing Uniforms and Aggression: A Field Experiment” (1987) 17:3Eur. J. Soc. P. 57.Google Scholar

52 Dipboye, R.L., “Alternative Approaches to Deindividuation” (1977) 84 Psych. Bull. 1057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

53 Postmes, T. & Spears, R., “Deindividuation and Antinormative Behavior: A Meta-Analysis” (1998) 123:3Psych. Bull. 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Scharlott, B.W. & Christ, W.G., “Overcoming Relationship-Initiation Barriers: The Impact of a Computer-Dating System on Sex Role, Shyness, and Appearance Inhibitions” (1995) 11:2Computers in Human Behavior 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S. & Sethna, B.S., “The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups” (1991) 6:2Human-Computer Interaction 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weisband, S.P., “Group Discussion and First Advocacy Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups” (1992) 53 Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Locke, S.D. & Gilbert, B.O., “Method of Psychological Assessment, Self-Disclosure, and Experiential Differences: A Study of Computer, Questionnaire, and Interview Assessment Formats” (1995) 10:1Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 255.Google Scholar

57 Duffy, J.C. & Waterton, J.J., “Under-Reporting of Alcohol Consumption in Sample Surveys: The Effect of Computer Interviewing in Fieldwork” (1984) 79:3Brit. J. Addict. 303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

58 Jessup, L.M., Connolly, T. & Galegher, J., “The Effects of Anonymity on Group Process in Automated Group Problem Solving” (1990) 14 MIS Quarterly 312Google Scholar; Kiesler, S. et al. , “Affects in Computer-Mediated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal to Terminal Discussion” (1985) 1 Human-Computer Interaction 77Google Scholar; McCormick, N.B. & McCormick, J.W., “Computer Friends and Foes: Content of Undergraduates Electronic Mail” (1992) 8 Computers in Human Behavior 379.Google Scholar Note, however, that this claim of increased aggression in electronically mediated communication is not unchallenged. See Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.F. & Park, D.W. “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction, A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication” (1994) 21:4Comm. Res. 460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L., “Group Decision Making and Communication Technology” (1992) 52:1Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Siegel, J. et al. , “Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication” (1986) 37:2Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Adrianson, L. & Hjelmquist, E., “Users Experiences of Com — a Computer-Mediated Communication-System” (1998) 7 Behaviour and Information Technology 79Google Scholar; Benson, T.W., “Rhetoric, Civility, and Community: Political Debate on Computer Bulletin Boards” (1996) 44:3Comm. Q. 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kielser, S. et al. , “Affect in Computer-Mediated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal discussion” (1985) 1 Human-Computer Interaction 77Google Scholar; Smolensky, M.W., Carmody, M.A. & Halcomb, C.G., “The Influence of Task Type, Group-Structure and Extroversion on Uninhibited Speech in Computer-Mediated Communication” (1990) 6 Computers in Human Behavior 261.Google Scholar

61 Baxter, L.A. et al. , “Ways of Doing Conflict: A Folk Taxonomy of Conflict Events in Personal Relationships” in Kalbfleisch, P.J., ed., Interpersonal Communication: Evolving Interpersonal Relationships (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993) 89Google Scholar; Harris, L.M., Gergen, K.J. & Lannamann, J.W. “Aggression Rituals” (1986) 53:3Comm. M. 252.Google Scholar

62 See Anderson, R.E., Carter, I. & Lowe, G.R., Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Social Systems Approach, 5th ed. (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1999).Google Scholar

63 Sugimoto, N., “Norms of Apology Depicted in U.S. American and Japanese Literature on Manners and Etiquette” (1998) 22:3I. J. I. R. 251.Google Scholar

64 Shenkar, O. & Ronen, S., “The Cultural Context of Negotiations: The Implications of Chinese Interpersonal Norms” (1987) 23:2J. App. Behav. Sci. 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Cohen, D. et al. , “Insult, Aggression, and the Southern Culture of Honor: An Experimental Ethnography” (1996) 70:5J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Nisbett, R.E., “Violence and U.S. Regional Culture” (1993) 48 Amer. Psychol. 441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

66 Braithwaite, C.A., “Blood Money: The Routine Violation of Conversational Rules” (1997) 10:1Communication Reports 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Brown, P., “Gender, Politeness, and Confrontation in Tenejapa” (1990) 13:1D. P. 123.Google Scholar

68 Petronio, S. et al. , “(Mis)Communicating Across Boundaries: Interpersonal and Intergroup Considerations” (1998) 25:6Comm. Res. 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Speicher, B.L., “Interethnic Conflict: Attribution and Cultural Ignorance” (1995) 5:3The Howard Journal of Communications 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 See online: CyberAtlas http://www.cyberatlas.co> (date accessed: 14 June 2000).

71 Nicotera, A.M. & Rancer, A.S., “The Influence of Sex on Self-Perceptions and Social Stereotyping of Aggressive Communication Predispositions” (1994) 58:4Western Journal of Communication 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Herring, S., “Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier” (American Library Association Annual Convention, Miami, 27 June 1994) at para. 4Google Scholar, online: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt (last modified: 6 September 1994).

73 Ibid. at para. 5.

74 Bellamy, A. & Hanewicz, C., “Social Psychological Dimensions of Electronic Communication” (1999) 4:1Electronic Journal of Sociology, online: Electronic Journal of SociologyGoogle Scholarhttp://www.sociology.org/content/vol004.001/bellamy.html (last modified: 10 June 1999).

75 Alicke, M.D., “Egocentric Standards of Conduct Evaluation” (1993) 14:2Basic and Applied Social Psychology 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 Labov, W., Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1972).Google Scholar

77 Schiffrin, D., “Jewish Argument as Sociability” (1984) 13:3Language & Society 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78 Corsaro, W. A. & Rizzo, T.A., “Disputes in the Peer Culture of American and Italian Nursery-School Children” in Grimshaw, A.D., ed., Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations and Arguments in Conversations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 21.Google Scholar

79 Kochman, T., “The Boundary Between Play and Nonplay in Black Verbal Dueling” (1983) 12 L. Soc. 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 See Brown, supra note 16 at 172.

81 Supra note 51.

82 Loundy, D., “Whose Standards? Whose Community?” Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (1 August 1994) 5.Google Scholar

83 Rheingold, H., The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (Don Mills: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1993)Google Scholar; L. Lessig, supra note 35.

84 Mack v. North Hill News (1964), 46. W.W.R. 254 (Alta. S.C).

85 See e.g. Icove, D., Seger, K. & Von Storch, W., Computer Crime: A Crime Fighter's Handbook (Sebastopol, Cal.: O'Reilly & Associates, 1995) at 61.Google Scholar See also Angus, I. & Blackwell, G., Phone Pirates (Ajax, ON: Telemanagement Press, 1993) at 14Google Scholar, and Fiery, D., Secrets of a Super Hacker (Port Townsend, Wash.: Loompanics, 1994).Google Scholar

86 Keeton, W. P., ed., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Tort, 5th ed., (St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. 1984) at 777.Google Scholar

87 Per Deyo J. in Connelly v. McKay, 176 Misc. 685, 28 N.Y.S. 2d 327 at 329 (1941), citing Restatement of the Law of Torts §559 (St. Paul: Mnn, The American Law Institute, 1938) at 142.

88 See Brown, supra note 16 at 191.

89 See e.g. Tolley v. J.S. Fry and Sons, [1930] 1 K.B. 467 at 479, rev'd on other grounds [1931] A.C. 333.

90 Restatement (Second) of Torts §559 (St. Paul: Mnn, The American Law Institute, 1977).

91 Peck v. Tribune, 214 U.S. 185 at 190 (1909).

92 Likewise, it has also plagued other areas of law, e.g. obscenity law. See generally R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). For a discussion of the community standards problem associated with obscenity in the online setting see US v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996).

93 Per Fuld J. in Mencher v. Chesley, 297 N.Y. 94, 75 N.E. 2d 257 at 259 (1947).

94 See Lessig, supra note 35 at 1746–47.

95 Ibid., at 1753.

96 Matyjewicz, G., “When Chat Rooms Attack: An Approach to Cyberlibel” (1999) 5:6The Internet Lawyer 7Google Scholar; Friedman, J.R., “Information Superhighway: Defamation” (1995) 64 Fordham L. Rev. 697 at 794.Google Scholar

97 Supra note 2.