Friday, July 12, 2002

Minnesota Court Rejects Out-of-State Defamation Suit Over Scholars' Online Spat By SCOTT CARLSON A decision on Thursday by the Minnesota Supreme Court could influence libel cases connected with chat rooms, newsgroups, and e-mail discussion lists. The court ruled that an Alabama scholar could not enforce a libel ruling from her state after a Minnesota scholar criticized her in an online newsgroup. The case involves two Egyptologists, Marianne Luban and Katherine Griffis, who exchanged a series of testy messages on a public archaeology newsgroup in 1996 and 1997. According to court documents, Ms. Luban, who lives in Minnesota, questioned Ms. Griffis's credentials, saying she had gotten her degree from a "box of Cracker Jacks." Ms. Griffis, who teaches noncredit courses on Egypt at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, filed a lawsuit in Alabama district court. Ms. Luban did not show up for trial, so the court awarded Ms. Griffis $25,000 in damages. But when Ms. Griffis filed the judgment in a Minnesota county court, Ms. Luban challenged it, contending that the Alabama court did not have jurisdiction. Lawyers for Ms. Griffis contended that because Ms. Luban's withering postings mentioned Ms. Griffis's business and reputation in Alabama, Ms. Griffis should have the right to try the case in Alabama. The plaintiff based her case on Calder v. Jones, a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the Hollywood actress Shirley Jones was allowed to sue the Florida-based National Enquirer in a California court. But the Minnesota Supreme Court said in its opinion on Thursday that the lower court's interpretation of Calder was too broad and that Ms. Luban's statements were not "expressly aimed" at Alabama. "The State of Alabama was no more involved in this than was Minnesota or Missouri," said John P. Borger, a lawyer for Ms. Luban. "We're very pleased." But C. Peter Erlinder, a lawyer for Ms. Griffis and a professor at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, said that the court had "misread" the Calder decision. He said the decision could make libel suits difficult for people who are falsely criticized online. "The concern that I have is that it would be possible for a person anywhere in the world to make specific comments about a person's professional life, business, and professional credentials ... and put that person in the position of having to go someplace else in the world to defend themselves." Easy-to-print version E-mail this article

Presidential bioethics panel recommends moratorium on research cloning Fired instructor at El Camino College is reinstated by California appellate court New degrees, majors, or programs are announced by 13 institutions Minnesota court rejects out-of-state defamation suit over scholars' online spat Cybersecurity-research bill stalls in Senate