That's a good question for Courtney “Love,” who is being faced with a defamation suit over some strong Twitter comments.  

Courtney Love used to have a business affiliation with fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir. Lately, however, Love hasn't been so loving with the "Boudoir Queen," as far as anyone can tell by her Twitter posts. Apparently, Courtney and Dawn had some kind of a misunderstanding about the terms of their contract, and their relationship has gone beyond South since. In fact, Courtney posted some pretty nasty stuff on Twitter about Dawn. Among her "tweets," Miss Love made threatening remarks towards Dawn and even stated that Dawn used to be a prostitute. Some of the other accusations were that Dawn is a racist, a homophobe, and an unskilled designer. Here is the complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on March 26, 2009, which includes invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and yes- libel. 

 

The question in this case is how much of this can be considered truly "factual" tweeting, as "defamation of character" suits must involve someone making up untrue things about someone else with the intent to destroy them in some way, especially financially. If Courtney was simply tweeting her opinion based on the history of service she had received or personal experiences with the designer, then no matter how vile the comment, she would be entitled to say those things publicly.  In the case of Gerts v Robert Welch, Inc, the Supreme Court ruled that the states, respectively, are in charge of deciding what constitutes libel, but with a minimal requirement of there being strong malice, and that the defendant acted negligently. Basically, if the intent is anything less, private citizens should not be held liable for disparaging comments made against other citizens. Apparently, California has no criminal statute on libel. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch,_Inc.

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17263

 

Considering some of the things said by Courtney Love, combined with the fact that these women apparently used to be friends or at least close acquaintances, and also that the venue (Twitter) has a 160 character limit, I feel that much of what was said was just easy emotional venting. The comments may have been vile, disgusting, and very embarrassing for Dawn Simorangkir, but for the most part, it is hard to say whether they were true or just vicious lies, and therefore difficult to prove with malice concerning the accusations. Regarding the threats, infliction of emotional harm, and the breach of contract, however, Dawn probably has a good case against Courtney, and I for one, hope she is awarded adequately. Courtney really didn't need to let her feelings take over so much in this case. She could have talked to a friend, a family member, or even a counselor. It is senseless to dump on someone publicly just because you are not getting along privately. Sometimes it's better to bite one's tongue than to say something that might escalate the situation. 

Now, keeping that in mind- if you disagree with my opinion on this case, would you log in to Twitter and tweet-dump on me for it? Probably not. Thank you for that. In closing, I would like to quote Benjamin Franklin:

  

"The heart of a fool is in his mouth, but the mouth of a wise man is in his heart." 

[Disclaimer: Lawyer Up Live recognizes that the subject of this posting primarily dealing with defamation is a matter of Tort and not Criminal Law. We feel that this particular high profile case, which may help define future parameters of acceptable online speech through mediums such as Twitter, is worthy of discussion given the common use of social networking tools within our target audience. Though this article offers a deviation from the primary area of law covered by Lawyer Up Live, it still speaks soundly in favor of our mission to educate the youth and prevent unnecessary entanglements in matters of potential legal consequence which may occur in everyday life.  – Editor]