Watch what you tweet, you might get sued.

In what will probably be the first of many, attempts at least, a Chicago resident now finds herself in a bit of trouble this week due to comments she made on Twitter.

Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read messages known as tweets. Tweets are text-based posts of up to 140 characters displayed on the author’s profile page and delivered to the author’s subscribers who are known as followers. Senders can restrict delivery to those in their circle of friends or, by default, allow open access. Users can send and receive tweets via the Twitter website, Short Message Service (SMS) or external applications.

Everybody caught up? Lets continue.  Anyway, Chicago resident, Amanda Bonnen apparently was having issues with her landlords Horizon Realty.  Feeling a bit fed up, she tweeted this to her friend…

…and here we are, one $50,000 defamation law suit later.  More info from Marian Wang (give her credit if she breaks the story first, people…)

Today, Horizon Group Management filed a lawsuit against her, alleging that her statement damaged the company’s business reputation.

According to the complaint filed in Cook County court today, Bonnen “maliciously and wrongfully published the false and defamatory Tweet on Twitter, thereby allowing the Tweet to be distributed throughout the world.”

Bonnen has 20 followers on Twitter.

The complaint in all its glory can be read here, for those of you that are in to that sort of thing (RAWR!)

So, where do we go from here? I guess to a basic definition of the tort, defamation.

Defamation requires the defendant to make a defamatory statement (something that lowers the reputation of another) and that statement has to be about the plaintiff, false, and broadcast to a third party.  In situations where the statement is about a public figure there is an additional requirement of “actual malice”; intentionally stating falsities or statements with and utter and complete reckless disregard for the truth.  Statements made about private figures or companies that are matters of public concern require that a negligence standard be met (namely that the speaker was negligent in determining whether or not the statement was true).

Is the statement defamatory? Sure. it has the potential to lower the reputation of whomever it is Ms. Bonnen was referencing.

Is the statement about the plaintiff? The plaintiff is technically Horizon Group Management, and Ms. Bonnen’s tweet referred to Horizon Realty.  Not the same, but based on the context clues (i.e. Ms. Bonnen rented an apartment from them, she previously sued mentioning a moldy apartment, etc.), I think the courts could make that connection.

Is the statement broadcast/publicized to a third party? Yes. The publication requirement for defamation suits just requires that some third party see (libel) or hear (slander) the defamatory language. This defamatory language can either be intentionally released or negligently in order to satisfy the publication requirement. Ms. Bonnen could have been sued for defamation by only having one follower, or 1 million followers; as long as the elements for defamation are met.

Is the statement false? This will obviously be one of the reasons for a trial, if they go to a trial.  In a press release after the lawsuit Horizon does mention that there was a leak in various apartments, including Ms. Bonnen’s in March of ‘09.  After inspection, Horizon themselves did not find any mold, but I’m assuming, based on Ms. Bonnen’s tweet that she feels differently.

Standard? This is at the very least, a matter of public concern, and based on the wording in Horizon’s lawsuit, they seem to be holding themselves out as public figures or a public company, meaning that the “actual malice” standard must be met.  This should also be a matter of argument should the case go to trial, because if Ms. Bonnen does have mold or believes she has mold and that Horizon had not done anything about it, she wouldn’t be intentionally stating a falsehood, nor showing a reckless disregard for the truth.

Obviously, being a completely outside party looking in, I don’t know all the details, but it seems like this lawsuit may do more to harm Horizon than help.  Even if they are able to successfully meet all of the elements of a defamation suit, and win the case in court, it is the court of public perception that is truly important.  Especially when you are in the business of renting out property to tenants.  I personally think that solving problems like Ms. Bonnen’s and having them spread positive messages by word of mouth would be more helpful than even winning this lawsuit and proving Ms. Bonnen falsely defamed the company.  You always catch more flies with honey…at least, that’s what people used to say.

The point of this whole matter though, is that its easy to not realize the power and responsibility individuals now harness due to social media and the internet.  Companies have been defamed, using much worse language, for years.  But until the advent of the internet, most of this was word of mouth, or at least not as easily disseminated to so many people, so companies either didn’t worry about it, or never knew about it.  But now, now that people have blogs, and twitter, and facebook, and followers and message boards?  People really need to be careful about what the say.  And that advice applies to the housewife in California or the Football Star in Buffalo.

…because if you aren’t careful? You just may find yourself embroiled in the middle of a $50,000 lawsuit.

This new Mary J is superior to everything on the radio

So why haven’t I heard it yet?  Please get that Katy Perry nonsense off my radio immediately.

[The One - Mary J. Blige featuring Drake]

Good Morning Forbes

Michael Jackson died 37 days ago. Still not buried. Enjoy your morning.

Officer Barrett apologizes while lawyer defends racist e-mail

Apology accepted, Officer Barrett.  Now, turn in your resignation.

A Boston police officer who sent a mass e-mail — in which he referred to Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. as a “banana-eating jungle monkey” — has apologized, saying he’s not a racist.

Officer Justin Barrett told a local television station on Wednesday night that he was sorry for the e-mail.

“I regret that I used such words,” Barrett told CNN affiliate WCVB. “I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist.

I missed the memo.  Since when is referring to a black man as a “banana-eating jungle monkey” not good enough to qualify you as a racist?  Who do you have to lynch around here?

And for the millionth time, having black friends is not a defense against charges of racism.  Many whites in the Pre-Civil War South had black friends, some even had black lovers.  *pause*  Who they owned as slaves.  So, no, the fact that some of your best friends are black does not automatically exclude you from being a racist.  I wonder how many of Officer Barrett’s black friends he forwarded that e-mail to.

But as weak as Barrett’s defense is, somehow his lawyer manages to top him.  Keep in mind, this is someone who presumably went through years of schooling to learn how to defend people:

Barrett’s comments were taken out of context, said his lawyer, Peter Marano.

*record scratches, music stops*

I’m sorry, what?

Barrett’s comments were taken out of context, said his lawyer, Peter Marano.
[Here are Barrett's comments in full, rambling context. Decide for yourself.]

“Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially,” Marano said. “He said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man.”

I’m not saying you’re a jungle monkey.  I’m saying you’re acting like a jungle monkey.  I’m not maligning you racially, I’m simply characterizing your actions.  So please stop taking my words out of context to make me look like a racist.  That’s something a jungle monkey would do.

Wow, typing that out, I just realized that my parody of his defense is his actual defense. Please find a new lawyer, Officer Barrett.  This one is too ridiculous for satire.

Boston police officer’s “jungle monkey” e-mail on Gates speaks volumes

[The full text of the e-mail is below.]

Yesterday, the Boston Police Department suspended Officer Justin Barrett for a racist e-mail he sent to colleagues regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates– an arrest Officer Barrett was not involved in.  In the e-mail, which appears to be a response to this editorial in The Boston Globe, Barrett writes that Gates should not assume “he has rights when considered a suspect. He is a suspect and will always be a suspect.”  Barrett then says, “If I was the officer [Gates] verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.”

Amazingly, Barrett qualifies his e-mail with this: “I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they claim is freedom…”  I’d venture to guess there are more than a few “not racists” serving in police departments across America.

Though it’s true that Barrett’s views do not represent the Boston Police Department or law enforcement in general, it has to be acknowledged that there are indeed people like him walking our streets, carrying weapons, determining and arresting suspects.  There are indeed people like Officer Justin Barrett who are, as we speak, writing the very police reports and testimonies that will be used to put people in jail or to death.  The very police reports that will overwhelmingly be given the benefit of the doubt in a court of law.

Police officers are not superheroes.  They are human beings who, in the line of duty, are occasionally heroic.  But they can also in the line of duty be occasionally wrong, or occasionally prejudiced, or occasionally corrupt, or occasionally all those things or none of them on any given day.  The only thing separating Justin Barrett and many officers around the nation is that he decided, foolishly, to type his views and send them out into cyberspace.  Others are no doubt smart enough to keep their views to themselves.

I don’t know if Sergeant James Crowley, the officer who arrested Professor Gates, holds any of these types of views, or a milder version of them, privately.  No one knows.  But the possibility does exist, which is why we shouldn’t take his word, or the word of any police officer, as unadulterated truth for no reason other than a badge.  Especially in light of the strange discrepancies between his police report, witness Lucia Whalen’s account, and the inarguable facts recorded on the 911 call.

Which brings us back to Officer Barrett, who believed that Professor Gates, in his own home, had no rights “when considered a suspect.”  Had Officer Barrett been the responding officer, he would not only have arrested Gates but “would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.”  I hope that most police officers see themselves as public servants, but it’s clear that far too many see themselves as our masters.

Earlier this week, at a popular right-leaning blog called The Corner, a police officer in the Los Angeles Police Department who blogs there anonymously under the pseudonym Jack Dunphy had this advice for every law-abiding citizen in dealing with the police:

You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.

That last sentence bears repeating.  If you assert your constitutional rights to a police officer and fail to do as instructed, you run the risk of being shot.  If there’s still anyone who thinks that Professor Gates overreacted, if there’s still anyone who can’t understand the dysfunctional relationship between black men and the police, consider this fact: Yesterday, Officer Justin Barrett had a badge and a gun.  Today, “Jack Dunphy” still does.

Here, courtesy of My Fox Boston, is the full verbatim text of Barrett’s e-mail– spelling errors, lack of paragraph breaks and all.  Read it and think about the fact that if it was ever your word versus Officer Barrett’s in a court of law, this is who would get the benefit of the doubt:

Article writer, That was, by far, the worst article I’ve ever read.  I am a former English teacher, writer, current police officer, father, husband and military veteran.  You need to be corrected and I certainly hope others have attempted, for your written messages and material is so 4th grade level, I am embarrassed I paid the 1.50 for the paper [rest assured, it is my aim to tell as many readers The Boston Globe and your biased reporting is both sub standard and strictly one sided].  For you are not professional and basically, your writing is ridiculous.  A reader may assume, per your article, that criminals are never well-dressed with a tucked in polo [2nd paragraph].  Your defense [4th paragraph] of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted [INDEED] with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect.  He is a suspect and will always be a suspect.  His first priority of effort should be to get off the phone and comply with police, for if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance.  Further [5th paragraph], a reader may assume that crimes only happen in back alleys at 0300?!  You’re kidding me, right?  Are you still in the 5th grade, Catholic School?  That paragraph was as pathetic as jungle monkey gibberish – I might as well ax you the question, “Is this your first test at reporting?”  You do not understand roles, tactics and dangers police officers face, as apparently you think no one wearing a polo might possess a firearm or knife on his/her person.  Might you fathom a woman could be a criminal?  Or are criminals all hairy, dirty, stinky, mean looking ugly men?  You are a hot little bird with minimal experiences in a harsh field.  You are a fool.  An infidel.  You have no business writing for a US newspaper nevermind detailing and analyzing half truths.  You should serve me coffee and donuts on Sunday morning.  My last point counters your final 2 paragraphs, in which you state Gates is “this immensely famous expert on race” – you really have to be kidding me?  Famous for what?  Expert why and says who?  What has he done for me and my family?  What has he done for the law enforcement community or military veterans or to secure freedoms and our borders in this country?  What has he done to help limit and reduce my income tax?  He has proven to work to get himself attention and become a wealthy lecturer.  He lectures students on the subject of racial ethics and profiling.  Jee whiz.  I must attend that lecture lest I lose my identity and right to free speech and the right to celebrate God and beliefs as I see fit.  I am not a racist, but I am prejudice towards people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they claim is freedom when it is merely attention because you do not receive enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers.  You mention Gates’ charges were dropped but that it was too late to stop the damage?  Damage?  Still kidding?  You need to serve a day with the infantry and get swarmed by black gnats while manning your sector.  Or you just need to get slapped, look in the mirror and admit, “Wow, I am a failure.  I am a follower.  Who am I kidding?”  Again, I like a warm cruller and hot Panamanian, black.  No sugar.  Your final statement reads, “Gates, whose great success has allowed him to transcend the racial divide-“ to which I ask, when did he transcend?  He indeed has transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey, thus he forever tremains amid this nation’s great social/racial divide that makes it a free and great nation mixed with crazy and awkward differences.  Go ahead, ax me what I think?  Gates is a goddamned fool and you the article writer simply a poor follower and maybe worse, a poor writer.  Your article title should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY-BACK TO ONE’S ROOTS.  JB

Good Morning Forbes

The Erin Andrews saga continues (although technically it will never stop as long as the media keeps reporting stuff…right?).  Andrews made a call to Georgia police last week because the paparazzi were hanging outside her home.  Audio below (via New York Post)

Paparazzi hounding seems a lot worse than usual when its for someone who’s just a sideline reporter and not a big movie/music star…or isn’t purposely getting paparazzi pictures for attention (*cough* paris hilton *cough*)

Is Kanye West is the new King of Pop? Kanye West thinks so

The new King of Pop is Kanye West, according to sources named Kanye West.  Apparently, this was said a month ago– on June 29– but Bossip picked it up off an obscure website yesterday, and it’s just now making the rounds on the blogosphere.  It should be noted that there are some doubts that this story is for real.  But there are also some legit publications running with this, publications that have a better fact-checking department than we do.  Anyway, here’s Kanye on Kanye:

“You know everyone loves and respects Michael but times change. It’s so sad to see Michael gone but it makes a path for a new King of Pop and I’m willing to take that on.  There’s nobody who can match me in sales and in respect so it only makes sense for me to take over Michael’s crown and become the new King,” said West. “First there was Elvis, then there was Michael, now in the 21st century its Kanye’s time to rule. I have nothing but respect for Michael but someone needs to pick up where he left off and there’s nobody better than me to do that. I am the new King of Pop.” …

West has reportedly tried to make contact with members of the Jackson clan to obtain official permission to use the title but has thus far received no response. It is believed the family is mourning the death of their loved one and have given little thought to the line of succession.

I promise you, I Googled and re-Googled this, I even checked Snopes, because I just can’t believe this nonsense went down four days after Michael Jackson’s death.  On June 29, I was still in a daze, with Human Nature playing on a loop on my laptop.  Apparently, Kanye was busy phoning the Jackson family in the midst of their funeral arrangements to lay claim to a fake title.  Put that autopsy on hold and wipe away those tears, Janet, I’m calling you to confirm that I’m the new Mayor of Munchkin City.

It’s true that Mike likely bestowed the title King of Pop on himself (according to his Wikipedia entry, Elizabeth Taylor popularized the term at an awards ceremony).  But when he did it, it was already obvious that he was.  There were no challengers.  No one had the ammo to say, “Yeah, you made Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad, but I made…”  When Michael Jackson took the King of Pop title in the late ‘80s, everyone’s reaction was, “Oh. Well, yeah, obviously.”

Which brings me to the King of Pop Rule for all future applicants: If it isn’t obviously apparent who the King of Pop is, then there isn’t one.  This isn’t a title that should be awarded by default; I say Mike keeps the title until someone takes it from him.  And that someone is not Kanye West– a talented rapper and performer (though not the best in the biz at either), but a horrific singer, even with the aid of Auto-Tune.

True story: I downloaded Love Lockdown (*cough* legally) back when that song was blowing up the air waves.  I listened to it for ten seconds and stopped.  Kanye was so badly out of tune, I literally thought I had downloaded an MP3 of some dude singing in his basement and trying to get some shine by labeling his song under Kanye’s name.  I went back and downloaded another (*cough* legal) version of it and it sounded exactly the same.  Slowly, the realization hit me.  Kanye West is a really terrible singer, and we simply do not have the technology to fix it.

Anyway, back to the King of Pop title.  Some people think it’s Usher.  Chris Brown’s name was thrown around the discussion before he threw Rihanna around his car.  I think Justin Timberlake has a legit claim to the throne– if the ladies and gentleman of the jury would consider his brilliant musical and comedic work on Saturday Night Live.  But if we’re being serious, the new King of Pop is most likely a Queen of Pop.  ‘Cause Beyonce is probably the most current artist who’s even approaching the sales and swagger and artistic diversity of Michael Jackson.  But is she “Oh. Well, yeah, obviously” the Queen of Pop?  Not as long as Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey are alive.

Glenn Beck: Obama is a “racist” with “deep-seated hatred” for whites

By far, one of the most entertaining aspects of Barack Obama becoming the first black president is the way certain white folks are losing their minds:

This morning on Fox and Friends, Fox host Glenn Beck accused President Obama of being “a racist.”

The group was discussing the recent Gates controversy, and Beck exclaimed that Obama has “over and over again” exposed himself as “a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is…”

When Fox’s Brian Kilmeadeon pointed out that many people in Obama’s administration are white, so “you can’t say he doesn’t like white people,” Beck pressed on. “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem,” Beck said. “This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

What’s hilarious about this argument is that, black president or not, white people still overwhelmingly hold the balance of power in America.  To illustrate this point, here’s a picture of the cast of this summer’s hit show The Bachelorette.

The fact that there are no black, Latino, Asian or Native American men appearing in your picture, and that ABC’s most popular reality franchise has a strict no miscegenation policy straight out of the 1940s isn’t what’s important.  What’s important is that this could be a picture of pretty much anything in America– the 30 richest CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, 30 members of Congress selected at random, 30 owners of NFL teams.  So tell us, Barack Obama, why aren’t you giving white men the same benefits and privileges and preferential treatment that they’ve received in this country for over 230 years?

For the sake of argument, let’s say we replaced one of the men in the picture above with a black man in order to add some diversity.  Glenn Beck’s worldview ignores the fact that 29 of the 30 cast members are still white men, but is instead outraged at the one white man who lost his place on the show to the equally qualified black guy.  Suddenly, a show that is 29/30ths white is racist against white people.  Apply the same philosophy to everything else in America– like, say, the Supreme Court– and suddenly the most pressing issue our country faces is racism.  Against white people.

To be fair, most white folks are chill about the New Colored World Order.  In fact, they helped usher it in.  But it’s the few who are losing their minds at the American presidency becoming 1/44th black, the few who think the definition of racism is “the absence of special treatment,” the few like Glenn Beck who drive an Escalade to their eight-figure jobs where they complain that white men just can’t catch a break in this country that are making television worth watching these days.

Kim Kardashian & Reggie Bush have broken up.

“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO”

-Darth Vader

It is official…New Orleans Saints star RB Reggie Bush and (insert reason why you think she’s famous here) Kim Kardashian have broken up.  More news via…the Associated Press. What? is there not enough regular news going on in the world that the AP is reporting this?

Kim Kardashian and Reggie Bush are splitsville. Kardashian’s spokewoman, Jill Fritzo, confirmed the longtime couple has called it quits. Fritzo declined further comment. The 28-year-old reality star dated the 24-year-old New Orleans Saints running back for some two years.

She recently discussed the difficulties of having a long-distance relationship on her E! reality show “Keeping Up With the Kardashians.” Kardashian co-stars with her family on the hit series, which ended its third season in May.

Last November, Kardashian said she and Bush were “dedicated” and tried to see each other often. She said, “When you’re committed to something and really want something, you make it work.”

Two years. Longer than I thought.  Personally, I can’t look at Kim Kardashian without thinking of this guy and saying “You ruins it!” (shout out to Gollum from Lord of the Rings!) over and over again.  Now, I’m sure everyone has a past, but when your past is recorded on video, and the whole world has seen it, and other celebrities comment on how much they like it?  I’m guessing its kinda hard to build a long term relationship off of that.

Below, the couple in happier times.  Pour some out at your own leisure.

[nggallery id=6]

Associated Press – Publicist: Kim Kardashian and Reggie Bush break up

New on DVD – July 28th

Dragonball Evolution

PG –Intense sequences of violence and action and brief mild language

Director – James Wong

Starring – Justin Chatwin, Emmy Rossum, Chow Yun Fat, James Marsters

Theater Release Date – February 6, 2009

Box Office – $9 million

Length – 1 hour 25 mins.

Cover Synopsis – “Goku is a powerful warrior who protects the Earth from an endless stream of rogues bent on dominating the universe and controlling the mystical objects known as Dragonballs. Roshi is the Master who guides Goku on the young man’s epic quest to save the Earth from the forces of darkness.”

Ratings – Rotten Tomatoes: 3.4/10, 13%

IMDB: 3.3/10

Fast & Furious

PG-13 –Intense sequences of violence and action some sexual content, language, and drug references Director – Justin Lin

Starring – Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, John Ortiz, & Laz Alonso

Theater Release Date – April 3, 2009

Box Office – $155 million

Special Features – Gag reel, director commentary

Length – 1 hour 47 mins.

Cover Synopsis – “Vin Diesel and Paul Walker reteam with Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster for the ultimate chapter of the franchise built on speed! When fugitive Dominic Toretto (Diesel) returns to Los Angeles to avenge a loved one’s death, it reignites his feud with agent Brian O’Conner (Walker). But, as they race through crowded city streets and across international lines, they must test their loyalties by joining together to bring down a shared enemy.  From big rig heists to precision tunnel crawls, Fast & Furious takes you back into the high-octane world, which lives for speed, drives for the rush and breaks all the rules!”

Ratings – Rotten Tomatoes: 4.5/10, 28%

IMDB: 6.7/10

Miss March

UR (R) – unrated

Director – Zach Cregger, Trevor Moore

Starring – Zach Cregger, Trevor Moore, Raquel Alessi

Theater Release Date – March 13, 2009

Box Office – $5 million

Length – 1 hour 30 mins.

Cover Synopsis – “A young man awakens from a four-year coma to hear that his once virginal high school sweetheart has since become a naked centerfold in Playboy magazine. He and his sex-crazed best friend decide to take a cross-country road trip in order to crash a party at the magazine’s legendary headquarters and win back the girl.”

Ratings – Rotten Tomatoes: 2.5/10, 4%

IMDB: 4.9/10