Amber Hunt

ahunt@enquirer.com

Federal judge%27s ruling against TheDirty.com in Sarah Jones case overturned.

Former Bengals cheerleader previously awarded %24338%2C000 for defamation.

Jones%27 lawyer plans to ask U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.

Former Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones has lost her defamation case against a gossip website on which an anonymous user posted that she'd had sex with half of the football team's players and had contracted sexually transmitted diseases.

A 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel overturned an earlier verdict in Jones' favor, saying that while Jones was definitely "the object of defamatory content," neither the website, TheDirty.com, nor its operator, Nik Richie, are responsible for the third-party posting. Jones last year had been awarded $338,000 by the lower court.

The case had been closely watched by tech companies and First Amendment lawyers. Some 30 companies, including Google, eBay, Facebook and Amazon, had filed a joint brief in support of Richie, saying that he should be immune from prosecution under the Communications Decency Act of 1996, or CDA. That statute protects website operators from being liable for content posted by third parties.

"It's disappointing," said Chris Roach, Jones' lawyer. "We were really hoping it would be Nik Richie who would be (taking the case) to the Supreme Court, but we'll be doing it instead."

Richie posted on his Twitter account an image of the court filing with the message, "I saved the internet today. Your freedom continues."

His lawyer, David Gingras, said he's happy with the ruling, though he had looked forward to going to the Supreme Court with the case. If Roach does file a writ of certiorari to ask the higher court to review the case, Gingras said he'd join the filing.

"I think it's the right decision," said Jack Greiner, a lawyer who represents The Enquirer. "If this had been upheld, it would have undermined the statute and allowed cases to get to juries that just shouldn't get to juries. If people don't like the CDA, then Congress should amend it, but the courts are obligated to apply it as written."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which had also supported Richie, applauded the ruling Monday.

"This decision rightly recognizes the essential value of websites that offer platforms for user speech, including critical speech that helps consumers and reviewers connect and share their experiences online," ACLU lawyer Lee Rowland said in a statement. "The ruling reaffirms the importance of user-driven speech to a free and robust internet, and ensures that websites can offer spaces for community criticism without risking constant litigation over the comments of its users."

Roach disagreed. He said that because Richie encouraged people to post potentially defamatory content on the website, he was no longer a mere distributor of the information, but he was a developer liable for the posts.

The ruling is a "green light to do anything that's technically illegal on the Internet," Roach said. "It's letting (Richie) post whatever he wants with immunity."

Jones' case began in 2009 when the two defamatory posts appeared on Richie's website. Jones sued in federal court and won last year, largely because U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman ruled the website wasn't shielded by the CDA because Richie reviews all posts that are submitted to him and often leaves comments alongside them.

For example, in a post claiming that Jones had gonorrhea and chlamydia, Richie allegedly wrote, "Why are high school teachers freaks in the sack?" and signed his first name.

It's all standard operating procedure for TheDirty.com, a Scottsdale, Arizona-based website that routinely posts photos of women with derogatory comments, often featuring co-signs from Richie.

Whitney Gibson, an Internet defamation attorney with Vorys' Cincinnati office, said the ruling illustrates how outdated and overly broad the CDA is.

The way the law is written, "victims of online reputation attacks are often left without any recourse, any way to recover their damages, and worse, without any way to even remove defamatory comments about them from the Internet," he said in a statement.

Gingras said Jones should have just ignored the posts."If she wanted to become infamous, she got it," he said. "She called attention to the statements about her, which is detrimental to her in the long run. If she'd turned her cheek and ignored the posts, the whole thing would have blown over in a week or two and people wouldn't know who she was."

If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, Jones likely will be required to pay Richie's court costs, meaning filing the suit could cost her at least $5,000. Gingras said that Richie is also considering filing a malicious prosecution suit in hopes of recovering the more than $100,000 he's spent on legal fees.⬛