After the Las Vegas Review Journal released an article titled, BODYBUILDERS CASE: Murder-for-hire plot alleged, the following string of accusation were leveled at Muscle Missions and it's founder, Dennis L. Bates by an Internet message board user. The operator of that board has allowed the libelous and defamatory remarks to remain posted for more than a forty-eight hour period. What follows, is an examination of the actual posts by the internet message board user that include the libelous and defamatory remarks, along with NORTH CAROLINA LAW regarding cyber libel on internet message boards and forums. This comes at a time when just recently, The Associated Press announced a record award in an Internet defamation suit where a South Florida jury awarded a woman $11.3 million in damages.

North Carolina Libel Per Se

516 S.E.2d 907

This Court has defined libel per se as a publication which, when considered alone without explanatory circumstances: (1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace.

568 S.E.2d 893

In an action for libel or slander per se, malice and damages are deemed presumed by proof of publication, [*9] with no further evidence required as to any resulting injury. See Andrews v. Elliot, 109 N.C. App. 271, 274, 426 S.E.2d 430, 432 (1993).

561 S.E.2d 276

Under the law of North Carolina, a libel per se is a publication which, when considered alone without innuendo or explanation: "(1) charges that a person has committed an infamous crime; (2) charges a person with having an infectious disease; (3) tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession; or (4) otherwise tends to subject one to ridicule, contempt or disgrace." Renwick, 310 N.C. at 317, 312 S.E.2d at 409.

North Carolina Libel cases citing other cases

520 S.E.2d 603

Individuals found to be limited-purpose public figures bear the burden of proving that alleged defamatory statements against them were published with actual malice in order to recover damages. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964); see also Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1226, 75 L. Ed. 2d 467, 103 S. Ct. 1233 (1983). The

United States Supreme Court has defined "actual malice" as publication of a statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. New York Times Co. at 279-80, 11 L. Ed. 2d at 706.

Proving reckless disregard requires the plaintiff to offer "sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication." St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262, 267, 88 S. Ct. 1323 (1968).

Because plaintiffs are limited-purpose public figures, they bear the burden of not only showing that defendants knew of the falsity of their statements, [*14] but also of proving that defendants acted with actual malice. Whether a plaintiff has proven actual malice on the part of a defendant is a matter that is properly determined by the trial court. See Proffitt v. Greensboro News & Record, 91 N.C. App. 218, 371 S.E.2d 292 (1988).

When a public figure's libel action is considered at the summary judgment stage, "the appropriate question for the trial judge is whether the evidence in the record would allow a reasonable finder of fact to find either that the plaintiff has shown actual malice by clear and convincing evidence or that the plaintiff has not." Id. at 221, 371 S.E.2d at 293-94 (citation omitted).

568 S.E.2d 893

"Under North Carolina law, an individual may become a limited purpose public figure 'by his purposeful activity amounting to a thrusting of his personality into the "vortex" of an important public controversy.'" Gaunt, 139 N.C. App. at 786, 534 S.E.2d at 665 [*18] (quoting Taylor v. Greensboro News Co., 57 N.C. App. 426, 435, 291 S.E.2d 852, 857 (1982), disc. review denied, 307 N.C. 459, 298 S.E.2d 385 (1983)). Defendants offer no conclusive evidence, however, that all of the present plaintiffs are public figures, limited purpose or otherwise.