Transcript for Courtney Love in Court for Tweet
We turn to courtney love learning perhaps the hard way that what you say on twitter can land you in court. She's been charged with defamation in the very first liable trial involving twitter. That particular social medium and nick watt has the latest on this groundbreaking case. ♪ Reporter: Courtney love is a lot of thing, guitar goddess. Rock 'n' roll rascal and widow of kurt cobain, arguably the greatest grunger of them all. But did you ever think she might be responsible for the advance of jurisprudence in this great land. The courtney love twitter lawsuit is monumental because the judge has now determined that tweeting in california can potentially give rise to liability under the theory of defamation. Reporter: Because for the first time a twitter war has wound up in court. Love is in the dark. Libel is the charge or twibel as it's been dubbed. Reporter: The courtney love case will now set a precedent that will result in the average private person being liable as well. Reporter: In this 2010 tweet she suggested her lawyer rhonda holmes had been bought off when she wouldn't help love in a legal battle with the managers of the late cobain's estate. Love claims it was merely an opinion, that the internet is full of high personably and exaggeration and thought she was only tweeting it to two people, not to the world. This case could rewrite the rules of the much loved celebrity twitter war, you know, like miley cyrus victoria sinead o'connor, demi lovato berating prix rest hilton and george lopez calls kirstie alley overweight and kirstie calling george an alcoholic. Don't tweet when you're highly emotional. Don't tweet when you're under the influence of any alcohol or drug. Reporter: Sound advice for us all. Meanwhile, the love trial continues. For "good morning america," nick watt, abc news, los angeles. All right, for more on this we turn to abc's chief legal affairs anchor dan abrams. Dan, we saw the case as it's laid out now. What does it hinge on for you. It things primarily, I think, on the question of is in an opinion or fact? This is standard libel law. In any libel case, there's a big question which is in this case, when she said that her lawyer was bought off, is that her just saying, I think my lawyer was probably bought off or is she literally stating a fact which is, I think my lawyer was paid to do something? If it's a fact, then she could be in trouble. If it's opinion, then she's protected. The internet and particularly social media seem at times very cast as an electronic wild west where, you know, perhaps we can do what we want in a lawless place but is this potentially precedent-setting. That's what she argued. The same standards shouldn't apply to twitter as applies to something that's been reviewed for weeks in a magazine, et cetera. How can awe ply the same legal standards she argued. The court said, no, it's still a statement being made publicly in writing and as a result, the same legal standard applies. Now, we're talking about the same precedent setting -- she had been sued before by somebody else and she settled so she almost became precedent setting on a previous setting. This just a reminder the courtney loves of the world have been careful on twitter. Even though she thought it was only going out to two people. It doesn't. It goes out to a lot more and in thase the same legal standards apply and I think that's the way it will be ruled across the board. Lessons for all of us to learn. Dan, thank you. Always out there. Isn't when people feel they can delete it and it's gone. No, you can find all the deleted tweets, as well.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.