In what could be the most bizarre civil suit concerning social media, a district court decided that name-calling on Twitter is covered under the First Amendment.

A Massachusetts court dismissed the civil case brought by Mara Feld, who was so offended at being called “f—— crazy” on Twitter that she tried to sue Crystal Conway. According to to the court’s opinion,

The phrase “Mara Feld … is f—— crazy,” … cannot reasonably be understood to state actual facts about plaintiff’s mental state. It was obviously intended as criticism – that is, as opinion – not as a statement of fact. The complaint therefore cannot base a claim of defamation on that statement.

Credit: shawncampbell
Credit: shawncampbell

Conway sent out the offending tweet to all of her 550 followers after Feld resold a horse shortly after buying it from Conway, who was upset that the horse may have been sent to a slaughterhouse. Feld claimed that the tweet hurt her professional career because it would appear when you Googled her name. Bringing attention to the offending tweet with the lawsuit probably hasn’t helped Feld out.

While it’s rather easy to dismiss this case as something that would appear in The Onion, Feld would have had a case if she was actually able to prove that people thought she was crazy.

“Calling someone  a name will be usually construed by courts as a statement of opinion,” said Whitney Gibson, a Internet defamation litigator and author of Internet Defamation Removal Attorneys . “A gray area arises when an individual engages in name-calling but implies facts behind the name-calling.  In the example of this case, calling someone ‘crazy’ may support a defamation claim if the speaker implies that there are facts to support such an assertion (such as a psychiatric diagnosis) and these facts are untrue.”

The downside for Feld, who couldn’t prove injury to her sanity, is that the tweet is pretty much stuck online.

“In today’s digital world, false postings on social media can be extremely damaging, and individuals who are experiencing harm from social media postings should know that they are within their rights to pursue damages relating to defamatory social media postings,” said Gibson.

Twibel (Twitter libel) can be pretty damaging – just ask singer Courtney Love, who should probably disable her social media accounts for the sake of her bank account. Love still has to pay $95,000 for calling a fashion designer a thief on Pinterest, but she avoided liability when she accused her lawyer of taking bribes in on Twitter.

Love is already known for her antics, but Twibel cases involving other celebrities and politicians have even appeared across Europe and in South Africa.

Social media isn’t always awash with educated or even coherent comments, but employment lawyer Robin Shea has some really good (and common sense) advice for the Internet:

Don’t tweet when you’re upset or emotional. You’re much more likely to say something you’ll regret when you’re fragile.