Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
755 F.3d 398 (2014)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Nik Lamas-Richie and Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC (defendants) operate www.TheDirty.com, a website that publishes user-submitted comments, photographs, and videos. The website is essentially a tabloid targeting nonpublic figures. Richie and his staff choose which submissions to publish, but they do not alter or edit them other than making deletions. Submissions appear authored by a single, anonymous user identified as The Dirty Army, followed by comments Richie writes, signed “-nik.” The website posted photographs of Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader and teacher Sarah Jones (plaintiff), with user-written comments saying disparaging things about her personal life. Richie added his own comments below the posts. The first said Jones’s companion was a sex addict, the second said, “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack?” and the third said Richie was no longer jealous of students who had a cheerleader for a teacher. Richie refused to remove the posts until Jones sued. Richie requested dismissal, arguing the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) barred Jones’s state-law defamation claims. The district court declined, reasoning that the act did not provide immunity for someone who becomes a developer of third-party postings by adding comments that encourage or invite them. Richie appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibbons, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
