Marty Thomas suing Twitter- Page 2

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 2:51pm

Bravo Marty! It's about time that all of this technology stop giving people free reign to be anonymous and say horrible things about others. With the rash of recent suicides maybe people are finally having enough of the rotten, mean-spirited behavior online.

Supposedly Perez Hilton is even going to be nicer now. I hope Marty wins. :)

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 2:51pm

Bravo Marty! It's about time that all of this technology stop giving people free reign to be anonymous and say horrible things about others. With the rash of recent suicides maybe people are finally having enough of the rotten, mean-spirited behavior online.

Supposedly Perez Hilton is even going to be nicer now. I hope Marty wins. :)

[Disneyland Magic Man]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 2:52pm

This is ridiculous. What's next, Broadway actors suing the critics because something's unfavorably said about them in a review?

"So and so was off pitch ninety percent of the performance". "This and that can't act." If said actor personally believes that statement is false and can provide enough witnesses (i.e. friends in the cast) to say otherwise, does the reviewer get taken to court?

Or how about producers suing the reviewers when they say a show is ****. If they believe otherwise, it's their word against theirs. God knows how much harm a bad review can do to someone's career.

Being in this business opens you up to criticism, parody, humiliation, etc. That poster never said "Marty has crabs". They simply asked which Avenue Q cast member gave it to him. Get over it. I'm sorry you're not as big a star as you'd like to be, and someone's post online is enough for you to worry about the future of your career.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 3:00pm

He's not suing Twitter. He's suing the user.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 3:20pm

^ It was my understanding that he is suing Twitter to find out the identity of bwayanonymous so that he can then sue the person behind the screen name.

Posted: 10/14/10 at 3:23pm

Well right now he's suing Twitter because they won't reveal the real name of that poster. Presumably, he'll then sue that person for damages.

And this is very different than a bad review. Bad reviews (even mean ones) are not actionable. This was established through a landmark court ruling by the Iowa supreme court in 1901: An Iowa critic lambasted a touring act called The Cherry Sisters, referring to their singing as sounding like "wailing damned souls" and their dancing as "Mechanical" and then called poor Addie Cherry a "Capering Monstrosity."

The judge ruled if you invite the public to attend a performance, it can be reviewed. Unless Marty invited the public to inspect his pubes, this case is very different than a mere bad review.
Updated On: 10/14/10 at 03:23 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 3:24pm

That's what I get for reading the BWW News Desk's coverage!

[winston89]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 4:50pm

I am not saying that Mr. Thomas is wrong for doing this. However, I do feel that when you're using any sort of public online communication service such as facebook or twitter. You're opening up a potential pandora's box of things like this to happen. I am not sure how I feel about this whole thing but I do think that things like this will occur and he needs to know how to handle these sorts of things.

[mybigsplash]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 5:05pm

I think if one is going to defame someone, insult, or spread rumors, that person should lose their privilege of anonymity. Basically you're a coward.

Go Marty!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 5:25pm

I just wonder who you prove you did or didn't have crabs.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 5:31pm

I guess it'd be up to the tweeter to prove Thomas did have crabs, if they're going to go the "it's not libel if it's true" route.

[Disneyland Magic Man]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 5:40pm

Exactly, HOW do you prove someone did or didn't have crabs? Medical records are confidential.

This is ridiculous. So, every statement, parody, or display of Liza as a drug addict or alcoholic should stop because that could potentially ruin her career? Or Michael Jackson as a child molester? Where's the 100 percent non refuted truth about either of those statements? They can't go sue people for saying stuff about them, though. Whether Michael slept with little boys or not, people have been legally able to make claims and jokes about it for years.

Marty is a public figure. The poster didn't say he had crabs, either. All they did, amusing that it was public knowledge already, ask who in Avenue Q gave it to him. The real witch hunt should be to the person who told that poster that he had the crabs in the first place.

To the poster that said reviews were safe from legal action thanks to that law, if I were to say myself, not a reviewer, that I thought Alice Ripley went flat on a lot of her notes and resembled Mario dying in the old Nintendo video games every time she sang "know" in You Don't Know, could I be taken to court?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 5:54pm

No, you couldn't be sued for saying Alice was flat or Mario-like.

Yes, you could be sued for saying Liza was a drug addict.

Yes, you could be sued for saying Michael Jackson was child molester.

No, no one was ever "legally able" to make those claims (whatever that phrase means).

Why didn't Liza or Michael sue? No one knows except for Liza, Michael and their lawyers. Maybe the rumors were true, maybe they were false. Michael settled out of court when he was sued, but settlements are not public record.

Next question?

FYI, this case is gathering interest not because people are really interested in who Marty Thomas slept with, but because Marty Thomas is a Davey taking on a huge corporate Goliath. But more than that, "Anonymous Internet Slander" can easily be portrayed as "Cowardly Anonymous Cyber-Bullying."

This case has legs.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 6:09pm

This is the "Marty Thomas" that used to have the middle name "Equality," and used to invite me via facebook to hear him sing at Splash? Yeah he has a lot to lose.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 6:29pm

"The poster didn't say he had crabs, either."

Yes, the poster did. By asking "Who gave him crabs?" they are saying, "he has crabs." I'm not sure how else the offending Twitter post could possibly be interpreted.

"However, I do feel that when you're using any sort of public online communication service such as facebook or twitter. You're opening up a potential pandora's box of things like this to happen."

But Mr. Thomas was not the one to post this on Twitter. Whether he was using it or not, he did not "open up" this "pandora's box." It was put out there by someone else, whom he can't even defend himself against because of internet anonymity.

[bk]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 6:45pm

It's about time someone had the guts to do this and while I don't think it's going to go as far as it should, I wish it would. The anonymous posting of all sorts of horrible things about people has reached epic proportions and I'm all for making people stand behind what they post by using their real names. It's so easy to say anything you want about anyone when you're hiding behind an anonymous moniker - but the recent events of the day are what's going to take this case further than it would have gone even a month ago. I hope they expose the jerk who did it (he's probably a Data Lounge regular, and wouldn't THAT be fun - to expose THOSE people) and I hope he has to pay. And I hope that this causes enough problems that sites such as this one and All That Chat require real names to post.

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 7:19pm

Don't know Marty Thomas, but I do know a lot about cyberbullying, and we've all read about recent tragic effects from it.

If you're a victim you have to fight back. I am glad to hear the Broadway community is supporting him. There's strength in numbers.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 7:25pm

People have sued online social networks to release anonymous identities before, and they've lost. While Marty Thomas is certainly in his rights, I personally wouldn't think this would be worth the expense were I in his position (and I have been) to go through all this just to sue what will undoubtedly turn out to be some stagedoor fangirl ala BroadwayGirl.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 7:27pm

Good for Thomas. He has every right to sue to clear his name and go after the person who behind an anonymous user named, defamed him.

Nothing prohibits you from expressing your opinion, but when you state a fact about someone, and it is not true, you are subject to legal action. For anyone to compare this to a bad review (which is clearly opinion) does not understand the law. You cannot make up crap about people and not be held responsible, regardless of the forum.

Twitter would not generally be held responsible for the tweet, since generally service providers such as twitter/facebook/bww are not treated as the publishers of information, but service providers are often subpoenaed to get the actual identity of anonymous posters. Many are quashed because the postings did not rise to the level of defamation. But, if the court finds he posting defamatory, then he may have a chance.

I hope he goes after this person with a vengeance.
Updated On: 10/14/10 at 07:27 PM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 7:54pm

Interesting discussion. Thanks for all of the legal points.

Count me squarely in the 'Go for it, Marty!' camp!

[Q]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 8:05pm

Not being a fan of the negative aspects of the internet made possible by anonymity, I vote 'Go for it, Marty!', too.

In spite of the issues I have with Facebook, the thing I do appreciate is the identification involved. I hope that's a harbinger of the future.

[BrianS]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 8:16pm

"People have sued online social networks to release anonymous identities before, and they've lost."

Actually, that's been changing as you can read in the link.

http://tinyurl.com/mugaab

Disneymagic, you may not know the law, but it's pretty clearly defined what is protected and what is not. Parody is cool, slander is not. And your slippery slope argument has been proven false for a long time now as the courts have consistently upheld the balance between freedom of speech and protecting someone from slander.

Updated On: 10/14/10 at 08:16 PM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 8:54pm

As I mentioned, those who have lost the request to access info on anonymous posters usually lose because the courts found that they would not prevail on the underlying claim (often finding the postings were opinion, rather than statements of fact).

So, when you are trying to go after someone for an opinion you don't like, you will most likely lose a request to identify the poster. If you are going after someone stupid enough to state a fact that is actionable under a defamation claim, then you have a much better chance of piercing the anonymity.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 9:12pm

Just so I'm clear, are people saying that message boards posters, such as BWW and ATC, should post under our real names in order to prevent the spreading of malicious personal rumours. So wouldn't this then mean that the opinions, whether good, bad or ugly, would be stifled if it meant they were attached to a name? What about when some of us have legitimate "scoops" that can't be revealed because of the loss of anonymity?

Can you all asking for our identities to be revealed legitimately say that you would all continue on as usual?

Just trying to understand the argument as it pertains to BWW and the like.

[bk]

Posted: 10/14/10 at 9:27pm

If you make a specious and slanderous comment, yes, whoever is making it should have to be responsible for their words. Because any anonymous coward can say any malicious thing and cause hurt, loss of employment, and emotional distress - sorry, but it's the worst part of the Internet and always has been.