Drudge 2021

[Jude Petkus]

TheDRUDGE REPORT has learned that top GOP operatives who feelthere is a double-standard of only reporting republican shame believethey are holding an ace card: New White House recruit SidneyBlumenthal has a spousal abuse past that has been effectively coveredup.

If they begin to use [Don] Sipple and his problems against us, against the Republican Party ... to show hypocrisy, Blumenthal would become fair game. Wasn't it Clinton who signed the Violence Against Women Act?

One White House source, also requesting anonymity, says the Blumenthal wife-beating allegation is a pure fiction that has been created by Clinton enemies. [The First Lady] would not have brought him in if he had this in his background, assures the well-placed staffer. This story about Blumenthal has been in circulation for years.

Last month President Clinton named Sidney Blumenthal an Assistant to the President as part of the Communications Team. He's brought in to work on communications strategy, special projects themeing -- a newly created position.

Currently before this Court are a motion for summary judgmentfiled by defendant America Online, Inc. ("AOL") and a motion todismiss or transfer for lack of personal jurisdiction filed bydefendant Matt Drudge. Upon consideration of the papers filed by theparties and the oral arguments of counsel, the Court concludes thatAOL's motion should be granted and Drudge's motion should bedenied.

Plaintiffs Sidney Blumenthal and Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal arecitizens of the District of Columbia and have continuously lived inthe District since 1985. Complaint 1-2, 12. Sidney Blumenthal worksin the White House as an Assistant to the President of the UnitedStates. His first day of work as Assistant to the President wasMonday, August 11, 1997, the day after the publication of the allegeddefamatory statement. Jacqueline Jordan Blumenthal, SidneyBlumenthal's wife, also works in the White House as Director of thePresident's Commission On White House Fellowships. Complaint 13,16-17.

Defendant Matt Drudge, a Takoma Park, Maryland native, is aresident of the State of California, where he has lived continuouslysince 1987. Complaint, Ex. 8; Drudge Motion to Dismiss ("DrudgeMotion"), Declaration of Matt Drudge ("Drudge Decl. I") 2.1 .In early 1995, defendant Drudge created an electronic publicationcalled the Drudge Report, a gossip column focusing on gossip fromHollywood and Washington, D.C. Transcript of March 11, 1998 MotionsHearing ("Hearing Tr.") at 41. Mr. Drudge's base of operations forwriting, publishing and disseminating the Drudge Report has been anoffice in his apartment in Los Angeles, California. Drudge Decl. I2-4.

Access to defendant Drudge's world wide web site is available atno cost to anyone who has access to the Internet at the Internetaddress of "www.drudgereport.com." Drudge Decl. I 9. The front pageof the web site contains the logo "Drudge Report." Defendant Drudgehas also placed a hyperlink on his web site that, when activated,causes the most recently published edition of the Drudge Report to bedisplayed, Id. 2 The web site also contains numeroushyperlinks to other on-line news publications and news articles thatmay be of interest to readers of the Drudge Report. Id. Inaddition, during the time period relevant to this case, Drudge haddeveloped a list of regular readers or subscribers to whom hee-mailed each new edition of the Drudge report. Drudge Decl. I 6-7.By March 1995, the Drudge Report had 1,000 e-mail subscribers, DrudgeDecl. I 8; and plaintiffs allege that by 1997, Drudge had 85,000subscribers to his e-mail service. Complaint 47.

In late 1996, defendant Drudge entered into a six-month licensingagreement with the publisher of "Wired" magazine. Under theagreement, the publisher of "Wired" had the right to receive anddisplay future editions of the Drudge report in "Hotwired," a newelectronic Internet publication. In exchange, defendant Drudgereceived a bi-weekly royalty payment. In addition to the publicationof the Drudge Report in "Hotwired," defendant Drudge continued todistribute each new edition via e-mail to his subscribers and via hisworld wide web site. Drudge Decl. I 11-12.

In late May or early June of 1997, at approximately the time whenthe "Wired" licensing agreement expired, defendant Drudge enteredinto a written license agreement with AOL.3 The agreement madethe Drudge Report available to all members of AOL's service for aperiod of one year. In exchange, defendant Drudge received a flatmonthly "royalty payment" of $3,000 from AOL. During the timerelevant to this case, defendant Drudge has had no other source ofincome. Drudge Decl. I 13-14. Under the licensing agreement, Drudgeis to create, edit, update and "otherwise manage" the content of theDrudge Report, and AOL may "remove content that AOL reasonablydetermine[s] to violate AOL's then standard terms ofservice." AOL Mem. at 7; see Exhibit C to Licensing AgreementI, Ex. A to Jennings Decl. Drudge transmits new editions of theDrudge Report by e-mailing them to AOL. AOL then posts the neweditions on the AOL service. AOL Mem., Declaration of Matt Drudge("Drudge Decl. II") 17 AOL Mem. at 9. Drudge also has continued todistribute each new edition of the Drudge Report via e-mail and hisown web site. Drudge Decl. I 16; Hearing Tr. at 41-42.

Late at night on the evening of Sunday, August 10, 1997 (PacificDaylight Time), defendant Drudge wrote and transmitted the edition ofthe Drudge Report that contained the alleged defamatory statementabout the Blumenthals. Drudge transmitted the report from LosAngeles, California by e-mail to his direct subscribers and byposting both a headline and the full text of the Blumenthal story onhis world wide web site. He then transmitted the text but not theheadline to AOL, which in turn made it available to AOL subscribers.Drudge Decl. I 15, 16, 19.4

"The Internet is a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide humancommunication." Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 117S.Ct. 2329, 2334 (1997).6 It enables people to communicatewith one another with unprecedented speed and efficiency and israpidly revolutionizing how people share and receive information. AsCongress recognized in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, "therapidly growing array of Internet and other interactive computerservices ... represent an extraordinary advance in the availabilityof educational and informational resources to our citizens." 47U.S.C. 230 (a) (1). As one court has noted:

The Internet has no territorial boundaries. To paraphrase GertrudeStein, as far as the Internet is concerned, not only is there perhaps"no there there," the "there" is everywhere where there isInternet access. When business is transacted over a computer networkvia a Web-site accessed by a computer in Massachusetts, it takesplace in Massachusetts, literally or figuratively, as it doesanywhere.

The near instantaneous possibilities for the dissemination ofinformation by millions of different information providers around theworld to those with access to computers and thus to the Internet havecreated ever-increasing opportunities for the exchange of informationand ideas in "cyberspace."8 This information revolution hasalso presented unprecedented challenges relating to rights of privacyand reputational rights of individuals, to the control of obscene andpornographic materials, and to competition among journalists and newsorganizations for instant news, rumors and other information that iscommunicated so quickly that it is too often unchecked andunverified. Needless to say, the legal rules that will govern thisnew medium are just beginning to take shape.

In February of 1996, Congress made an effort to deal with some ofthese challenges in enacting the Communications Decency Act of 1996.While various policy options were open to the Congress, it chose to"promote the continued development of the Internet and otherinteractive computer services and other interactive media" and "topreserve the vibrant and competitive free market" for such services,largely "unfettered by Federal or State regulation ...." 47 U.S.C.230(b)(1) and (2). Whether wisely or not, it made thelegislative judgment to effectively immunize providers of interactivecomputer services from civil liability in tort with respect tomaterial disseminated by them but created by others. In recognitionof the speed with which information may be disseminated and the nearimpossibility of regulating information content, Congress decided notto treat providers of interactive computer service like otherinformation providers such as newspapers, magazines or television andradio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing ordistributing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared byothers. While Congress could have made a different policy choice, itopted not to hold interactive computer services liable for theirfailure to edit, withhold or restrict access to offensive materialdisseminated through their medium.

47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1). The statute goes on to define the term"information content provider" as "any person or entity that isresponsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development ofinformation provided through the Internet or any other interactivecomputer service." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(3). In view of thisstatutory language, plaintiffs' argument that the WashingtonPost would be liable if it had done with AOL did here -- "publishDrudge's story without doing anything whatsoever to edit, verify, oreven read it (despite knowing what Drudge did for a living and how hedid it)," Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities inOpposition to Defendant America Online, Inc.'s Motion for SummaryJudgment ("Pls.' Mem.") at 1 -- has been rendered irrelevant byCongress.

Plaintiffs concede that AOL is a "provider ... of an interactivecomputer service" for purposes of Section 230, see Complaint 94; Pls.' Mem. at 3, and that if AOL acted exclusively as a providerof an interactive computer service it may not be held liable formaking the Drudge Report available to AOL subscribers. See 47U.S.C. 230(c)(1). They also concede that Drudge is an"information content provider" because he wrote the alleged defamorymaterial about the Blumenthals contained in the Drudge Report. Pls.'Mem. at 4. While plaintiffs suggest that AOL is responsible alongwith Drudge because it had some role in writing or editing thematerial in the Drudge Report, they have provided no factual supportfor that assertion. Indeed, plaintiffs affirmatively state that "noperson, other than Drudge himself, edited, checked, vertified, orsupervised the information that Drudge published in the DrudgeReport." Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts ("Pls.' Stmt.") 1(ii). It also is apparent to the Court that there is no evidence tosupport the view originally taken by plaintiffs that Drudge is or wasan employee or agent of AOL, and plaintiff seem to have all butabandoned that argument.9

3a8082e126