Nature of Internet Saves E-Mail Info from Disclosure

Google does not have to produce information that might identify the author of an email that criticizes a Jamaican resort because the statements were made on the Internet, which is given less credence than other media, a New York appellate court found.

Sandals Resorts International, which operates resorts in Jamaica, filed an action in New York requesting that Google turn over information that could identify the person who sent out emails through a gmail account that Sandals contends were false and defamatory in asserting that the company is racist and discriminatory in hiring non-Jamaicans for all management positions, giving native Jamaicans only low-paying jobs.

The court wrote that the “culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such as newspapers and magazines has been characterized as encouraging a ‘freewheeling, anything-goes writing style’. . . Because the context of a statement impacts its potentially defamatory import, it is necessary to view allegedly defamatory statements published on the Internet within the broader framework on which they appear, taking into account both the tenor of the chat room or message board in which they are posted, and the language of the statements.”  However, the court cautioned that this “observation is in no way intended to immunize e-mails the focus and purpose of which are to disseminate injurious falsehoods about their subjects.”

The court also found that while accusing a person of being racist might be libel per se, a corporation must allege that the statements were false and that the corporation incurred actual damages in order to maintain a libel action.  Sandals failed to do either, but even if it had, the court found the statements were mere opinion and not actionable based upon the social context of the Internet.

The court observed that it was not dealing with a few statements but rather a multi-page writing.  “Consequently, our inquiry must address both the words and the context of the e-mail as a whole, as well as its broader social context, to determine whether the content of the e-mail constitutes defamation.”

“Considering the e-mail in question here as a whole, we find that it is an exercise in rhetoric, seeking to raise questions in the mind of the reader regarding the role of Jamaican nationals in the Sandals resorts located in Jamaica.  It is replete with rhetorical questions, asked either in relation to a link to an article about Scandals’ companies or executives or in relation to a link to a photograph from the resorts’ on-line public relations materials.  Its apparent purpose is not to characterize Scandals Resorts as racist.  It is to call the reader’s attention the writer’s belief that the native people of Jamaica, specifically the taxpayers, are providing financial support for the resorts or their island, but are not reaping commensurate financial rewards for that invest.  The tone of the e-mail, as well, indicates that the writer is expressing his or her personal views,” the court wrote.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding dismissing Sandals’ request for pre-action discovery to determine the name of the e-mail author.

Sandals Resorts International, Ltd. v. Google, Inc., N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department No. 100628/10, Issued May 19, 2011