Was Finkel v. Dauber case actually in violation of privacy or defamation laws?

Overview 

In the case of Finkel v. Dauber , a defamation lawsuit was filed by an internet user against several Facebook users. Posts of prurient statements were made by officers of a particular Facebook Group. The group's officers make up the defendants comprised of Michael Dauber and others. The internet user (plaintiff) alleges that the posts made in the "secret group" damaged the user's reputation. The plaintiff does not state that the contents of the Facebook group are accessible to other Facebook users not part of their "secret group." Her name is not mentioned. The post states that the plaintiff was found having sexual relations and advances with a horse, later contracted HIV from using heroin addicts' needles. The plaintiff went ahead and engaged in sexual intercourse with a baboon that made HIV spread in her body. 

Later she contracts AIDS from a fireman who she hired as a prostitute since she had no friends who were associated with her. The plaintiff is referred to as the devil in the Facebook post that depicts the young woman smiling, an ear edited on top of her head though not clear in the submitted copy to the court. A comment below the photo post adds to the devil reference that "the reflection of fire in the eyes adds a nice effect." The plaintiff adds that the distorted masked characters in the additional photograph provided to court seems to be her and depicted as the devil. At the end of the court case, the plaintiff fails to offer the best negligent entrustment or defamation remarks on her against her defendants. The court dismisses the complaint. 

Legal Issues 

The legal issues in Finkel v. Dauber included the language used in understanding whether the meaning of the words in the post used was to be treated as ambiguous or indefinite that could lead to defamatory remarks. Secondly, there was a legal issue on the ability of the post being characterized objectively as false or true. A broader setting or social context was needed to ascertain any applicable conventions or customs which might have been a signal to both the listeners and the readers, treated as an opinion or fact (Gutterman, 2008). There was also a need to check on the full context of what the communication entailed. Notably, the plaintiff alludes that defamation cause of action needs to be taken as she identifies herself in the posts as 11th cent. 

Opinion 

Defamation is based on false statements that are made by individuals and are not authorized to another party, say the third party comprising of a negligence standard. It has to constitute defamation or lead to special harm ( Salvatore v Kumar , 2007). Only facts are subject to being proven either false or true. Words are used differently to show their purpose. In the Finkel v. Dauber, any reader having access to the post cannot imagine the plaintiff contracting infectious diseases having intercourse with either a baboon or a horse or even the fireman who made her infected with syphilis and crabs makes her become a devil. Also, Facebook posts do not have facts attached to them whatsoever. Both the tone and the context of the entire post is based on vulgar language and adolescents' insecurities. As a result, the law does not provide cyberbullying with a tort action. In this case, there were no privacy violations or defamation issues. The court was right to sentence as it did to dismiss the complaint. 

References 

Gutterman, R. S. (2008). Media Law. Syracuse L. Rev., 59, 953. 

Salvatore v Kumar , 45 AD3d 560, 563 [2d Dept 2007] 

www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20292.htm