Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

James Woods Clears Hurdle in Effort to Unmask Twitter User

James Woods in 2012. He is seeking $10 million worth of damages from an anonymous Twitter user.Credit...Danny Moloshok/Reuters

To those who spend enough time on the Internet, anonymous attacks come with the territory, like mosquito bites in the tropics. But some bites have serious consequences.

So it may be with a defamation lawsuit filed by the actor James Woods, against a pseudonymous Twitter user who called him a “cocaine addict.” Mr. Woods says he aims to lift the cloak of anonymity that many use as a cover for online abuse.

In the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Mr. Woods, who has acted in films such as “Salvador,” “Casino,” and “Nixon,” hopes to unmask the Twitter user who goes by the name Abe List (@abelisted). He is also seeking $10 million worth of damages in a lawsuit that revolves around a single offending tweet.

Abe List has been has been able to maintain anonymity so far, sending a lawyer to court on the user’s behalf. And Twitter has resisted efforts by Mr. Woods’s lawyers to identify the individual, citing the First Amendment.

That resistance may end soon. Judge Mel Red Recana of the Superior Court denied a motion filed by Abe List’s lawyers this week to strike the case, potentially opening the door to revealing the user’s identity.

The original complaint, filed by Mr. Woods’s lawyer Michael Weinsten in late July, does not mince words, calling Abe List a “cowardly individual,” who conducted a “malicious online campaign” intended to “discredit and damage Woods’ reputation.”

“Woods intends to unmask and reveal AL for the liar he is,” the complaint reads. “AL’s reckless and malicious behavior, through the worldwide reach of the Internet, has now jeopardized Woods’s good name and reputation on an international scale.”

The dust-up began earlier that month when Mr. Woods posted on his Twitter account about Bruce Jenner and Planned Parenthood.

“USATODAY app features Bruce Jenner’s latest dress selection but makes zero mention of Planned Parenthood baby parts market,” Mr. Woods wrote, according to a screenshot included in a court filing.

Abe List responded, “cocaine addict James Woods still sniffing and spouting.”

That tweet is central to Mr. Woods’s defamation lawsuit. But the insults did not stop there, according to the complaint, which says that Abe List also referred to Mr. Woods by a vulgar name, as well as describing him as a “joke” and “a ridiculous scum clown-boy” on the social media platform. Abe List’s account is now protected, which means the tweets are no longer visible to the public at large.

Many of the arguments in the case have centered on the nature of statements made on Twitter. Abe List’s lawyers have argued that the “addict” tweet was hyperbole and not a statement of fact. “It was uttered on Twitter, a platform known for insult and exaggeration,” they argued in a motion filed in September.

They have also pointed to a long list of tweets they noted were sent by Mr. Woods and were inflammatory, including those calling the Rev. Al Sharpton “a disgusting pig directly responsible for the murder of two good policemen,” or using allusions to homosexuality as insults. They also say Mr. Woods has called people “clown” and “scum” and told someone to “put down your crack pipe” on Twitter.

“Mr. Woods dishes it out, but he can’t take it,” Lisa Bloom, a lawyer who is representing Abe List, said in an emailed statement on Wednesday. “Mr. Doe’s suggestions that Mr. Woods was on drugs was not meant to be taken literally, just as Mr. Woods’ ‘put down your crack pipe’ and other mocking language was not serious.”

But Mr. Woods and his lawyer have argued that Abe List’s tweet was a statement of fact and thus constitutes defamation. In their opposition to the defendant’s motion to strike the case, they cited numerous examples of misinformation spread on Twitter, including one incident covered by The New York Times in 2012.

They also included a seven-page report from Edward Finegan, professor emeritus of linguistics and law at the University of Southern California, who cited the Oxford English Dictionary and uses sample sentences from The Los Angeles Times to conclude that the tweet in question would likely be interpreted as a statement of fact by those who read it. Mr. Finegan disclosed to the court that he was paid $450 an hour by Mr. Woods’s attorneys. Judge Recana cited Mr. Finegan’s arguments in his recent ruling.

“The cruelty of having one’s reputation sullied by an anonymous coward is agonizing,” Mr. Woods said in a statement provided by his lawyer. “Twitter users beware: You are not above the law.”

Little is known about the person behind Abe List. Court documents say that the account’s original biography linked to Harvard’s website and described its user as a “math dork” who worked in private equity.

Now Abe List claims to be a victim, too. “Preserving this account but making it inaccessible because of vindictive legal bullying & documented concerns about dangerous angry threats,” the profile now reads.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT