Judge: Tweet ‘lacks context’ for court action

Cook County judge dismisses defamation lawsuit involving Twitter post.

By Jamie Loo, First Amendment reporter

January 20, 2010

CHICAGO—A defamation case involving a Twitter post was thrown out by a Cook County Circuit Court judge today.

The case involved a posting, known as a tweet, over the social networking service Twitter by 25 year-old Chicago resident Amanda Bonnen. Bonnen's statement involved mold that was allegedly in her apartment. Twitter allows users to write messages consisting of 140 characters that can be shared on the Internet on a public or private account. A public account allows anyone to read postings. In May, Bonnen tweeted over a public account: “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.”

Bonnen’s landlord, Horizon Group Management LLC, filed a lawsuit against her in July claiming that the tweet was malicious and false, injuring the company’s reputation over the Web. The suit sought $50,000 in damages.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Diane Larsen said in court that the tweet is “really too vague,” and “lacks any context.” She said she considered the “innocent construction” meaning in the case. Larsen dismissed the case with prejudice finding that the tweet is non-actionable as a matter of law.

Bret Rappaport, an attorney for Horizon Group Management LLC, said after the ruling that he will meet with his client and discuss their legal options.

“We’re happy she ruled the way she did,” said one of Bonnen’s attorneys, Richard Balough. “The Tweet was just Ms. Bonnen’s personal observation.”

Leslie Ann Reis, assistant professor of law and director of the Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law at the John Marshall Law School, said she believes this is the first case involving a Twitter post in Cook County.

‘Innocent construction’

One of the key arguments in this case involves “innocent construction” of speech, where courts have ruled that the context and meaning of alleged defamatory speech must be weighed and reasonably interpreted. In defamation cases, plaintiffs must prove that the speech concerned them and that a false statement of fact has been made.

In their court filings, Bonnen’s attorneys argued that her tweets were random and hyberbolic, and were not statements of fact. Citing other Illinois court cases, they said a statement’s literary and social context matters in determining whether it is to be taken as factual content, and therefore constitutionally protected. They noted that as a medium Twitter contains academic, casual, insightful, and silly speech that is sometimes “drivel.” Bonnen only speculates what Horizon "thinks" in the tweet giving her personal opinion and not stating a fact. The tweet also doesn’t give Bonnen’s location or indicate she lives in property managed by Horizon to give factual background to her tweet, they argued.

“The tweet lacks a context of specific facts, is not objectively verifiable, and thus reasonably susceptible of innocent construction and protected by the First Amendment,” according to court documents.

Attorneys for Horizon argued that the public nature of a Twitter account allowed anybody in the world to access Bonnen’s tweets and that she intended to make a libelous statement about Horizon through this publication. Twitter is a legitimate medium that is used for a variety of purposes such as marketing, seeking support for specific causes, and is used by reporters to break news. Although Twitter may have ‘drivel’, books, magazines, and television also have drivel, they argued, and Bonnen shouldn’t be shielded from responsibility because of how she views Twitter.

“The truth is that when people decide to post information or comment on an issue online, they choose to make statements in an online medium available for the public to view. Any expectation of privacy disappears, and any posting must be read under the same standards otherwise involved in a defamation case-as a reasonable reader would interpret the posting,” according to court filings.