Woman Wins Right to Criticize Surgeon on Website 250
Scoopy writes "The website of a cosmetic surgery patient critical of her Sacramento surgeon's work is protected free speech, an appeals court said in an opinion that could have statewide implications.
The website contains before and after photographs of 33-year-old Georgette Gilbert, who said the surgery left her with one eyebrow higher than the other and a surprised look permanently affixed to her face.
The website was challenged in a defamation suit filed by surgeon Jonathan Sykes, a prominent professor and television commentator on the subject of cosmetic surgery.
Although the Sacramento-based 3rd District Court of Appeal only mentions Sykes, the opinion suggests that others who use 'hot topics' of public interest in their advertisements and promotions may shed protections against defamation afforded to ordinary citizens."
Link to the website (Score:5, Informative)
For those who do not want to register (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Link to the website (Score:3, Informative)
free registration (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IMHO She looks fine. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:According to courtroom reporters... (Score:4, Informative)
We heard about this back in 2006 [slashdot.org]
. It was pretty amazing that she got it overturned.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
In this case "actual malice" means "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published with "reckless disregard of the truth". This standard comes up quite a bit in when, for example, a celebrity sues a newspaper for publishing something false and damaging. The celebrity need not prove it was published with intent to harm, only that the newspaper didn't care whether it was true or not. In this case, the appeals court ruled that the doctor was a public figure, and so this standard applies. (For a non-public figure, like a neighbor or classmate who has done nothing to seek the spotlight, the court will accept a defamation claim even without proof of actual malice.)
As with many things, the wikipedia article on actual malice [wikipedia.org] is helpful in explaining this distinction, but only a real lawyer -- and IANAL -- is qualified to interpret it for you.
Re:Patient's privacy? (Score:3, Informative)
If the doctor is not in a position to put up a web site, with pictures and inimate details of a patient who's gone public, then that person should be refrained from going public. Since that's pretty hard to enforce retroactively the only recourse seems to view the patient's public proclamations as relinquishing all privacy rights with respect to the doctor or hospital involved.
The short answer to that. No. The doctor or hospital doesn't have the right to give up or suspend my confidentiality if I complain. If I use inaccurate facts, then they could sue for my facts to be corrected. I could complain being unhappy about a successful surgery. That doesn't mean the medical institutions have the right to disclose my medical information to the public. The medical folks only have "the right" to sue for libel or to may for proper facts to be stated. If you stick to the facts, but are unhappy with the results, you are safe.
Re:According to courtroom reporters... (Score:3, Informative)