IS THE DAILY PILOT ALLOWING FALSE AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ON ITS BLOG?
Dear Readers,
Because the Daily Pilot removed the offending blog entry this morning that was to be the subject of this issue, we've done a quick edit so that we do not republish the defamatory material.
Hopefully, the following will still be somewhat readable and mildly interesting to those who follow First Amendment issues.
----Begin edited version of our story of an offensive blog entry------------------------------
On its moderated blog, the Daily Pilot is carrying a letter from Judith Berry.
Below Ms. Berry's letter are a number of comments from readers who opine about her letter, and various other things.
Among those comments was one with false and defamatory statements written by someone calling himself or herself "Get Real."
"Get real wrote on Oct 12, 2007 10:49 AM:"
[BLOG ENTRY SINCE REMOVED BY DAILY PILOT AND NOW BY CM PRESS]WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
Note: The CM PRESS is not qualified to give legal advice and what follows is not such advice. If you feel that you have been defamed, please consult an attorney competent in these matters:
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'.
Libel is written defamation and slander is spoken defamation.
We recall a case from law school about a man who had sent a letter with false and defamatory statements to a business rival. The business rival sued the man who sent the letter. The man who sent the letter argued that since no one had seen the defamatory statements except the person he sent the letter to, there were no damages. The court, however, noted that at the bottom of the letter were the writer's initials and also the initials of the secretary he dictated the letter to as is common in business letters. This was proof enough for the court that at least one other person saw and heard the defamatory statements.
What if you call someone a Nazi?
A Nazi is a member of a political party. If the person is not a member of that party, then he is not a Nazi. This is not a matter of opinion, but is a factual assertion that can be proven true or false. You can't even be sneaky and say something like "In my opinion, X is a Nazi." Tacking on "In my opinion," doesn't protect you. You've still made a factual assertion.
Because most people would consider being called a Nazi to be damaging to one's reputation, the one calling someone else that name had better be very sure that person is a member of the Nazi party before calling him or her a Nazi. Gore Vidal learned this lesson the hard way.
William F. Buckley once agreed to a TV debate with Vidal. During that debate, Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi." Buckley then called Vidal a "queer," and sued Vidal for defamation. Buckley won the case. Buckley, you may divine, was never a, ahhh, member, ahhhh, of the Nazi, ahhhh, party, so the statement was false.
Then, several years later, a magazine published an article about the debate and it republished the defamatory statement by Vidal. Republishers of libel are also liable. Buckley then sued the magazine and prevailed again. Both cases were interesting for a number of reasons to those interested in the law of defamation (and I won't go into the details here) but in brief: 1. Buckley agreed to the debate. 2. Buckley is a public figure.
See Buckley v. Vidal
In another case of interest, a couple in Colorado named Quigley (they're Catholic) got involved in a neighborhood dispute with a neighbor woman who was Jewish. The thing escalated to absurd levels and the Jewish woman got the ADL involved. Then, the head of the local chapter of the ADL publicly said that the Quigleys were anti-Semites. The Quigleys sued and won a judgement of $ 10.5 millon dollars against the ADL.
One interesting aspect of this case was the fact that there were tape recordings of Ms. Quigley talking on the telephone to a friend and saying negative things about the neighbor woman that the neighbor woman claimed were anti-Semitic. The jury obviously didn't buy it.
See Quigley v. Rosenthal
The First Amendment is a fascinating area of the law and is highly dependent on case law. As technology changes, the law changes.
More and more Internet and blog cases are working their way through the system these days.
First Amendment cases are always touchy because in this country we do value freedom of speech and we want to allow a robust discussion of issues. At the same time, however, people have a right to not be damaged by false statements of others who can simply log on to their computers and anonymously type the most outrageous things about others.
In Costa Mesa we're seeing a lot of dirty politics as extremists try to hurt Mayor Mansoor with various birds of a feather claims. We were made aware that some national liberal "anti-hate" Website was even carrying a report that Mayor Mansoor carpools to City Council meetings with the editor of the CM PRESS.
Actually, the editor of the CM PRESS has never even been in the same car, bus, plane, train or boat with Mansoor. Not once. So, how did the national outfit get its false information? No doubt it came from the same few extremist individuals who are spreading rumors locally and who are now using the Daily Pilot to get their lies out to the public.
What is going on is that some local extremists supply false information to the national groups who then publish it. Then, the local extremists quote the national liberal groups as their sources.
Some of these people who smear others may not be as anonymous as they think. What some don't realize is the fact that they leave their IP address behind when they visit websites or blogs or email others. These IP addresses can then be translated into street addresses of where the computer is located.
So, if they think they can defame others and hide behind anonymity, they may be surprised to find a process server knocking on their door.
If you want to avoid problems, it's best to address issues and not call people names. If you do call others names, then be sure that they qualify as opinions and not statements that can be proven true or false. Thus, you're probably okay if you call someone a dope, but you may be on very thin ice if you you call them a Nazi.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.
Note: The CM PRESS is not qualified to give legal advice and what follows is not such advice. If you feel that you have been defamed, please consult an attorney competent in these matters:
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'.
Libel is written defamation and slander is spoken defamation.
We recall a case from law school about a man who had sent a letter with false and defamatory statements to a business rival. The business rival sued the man who sent the letter. The man who sent the letter argued that since no one had seen the defamatory statements except the person he sent the letter to, there were no damages. The court, however, noted that at the bottom of the letter were the writer's initials and also the initials of the secretary he dictated the letter to as is common in business letters. This was proof enough for the court that at least one other person saw and heard the defamatory statements.
What if you call someone a Nazi?
A Nazi is a member of a political party. If the person is not a member of that party, then he is not a Nazi. This is not a matter of opinion, but is a factual assertion that can be proven true or false. You can't even be sneaky and say something like "In my opinion, X is a Nazi." Tacking on "In my opinion," doesn't protect you. You've still made a factual assertion.
Because most people would consider being called a Nazi to be damaging to one's reputation, the one calling someone else that name had better be very sure that person is a member of the Nazi party before calling him or her a Nazi. Gore Vidal learned this lesson the hard way.
William F. Buckley once agreed to a TV debate with Vidal. During that debate, Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi." Buckley then called Vidal a "queer," and sued Vidal for defamation. Buckley won the case. Buckley, you may divine, was never a, ahhh, member, ahhhh, of the Nazi, ahhhh, party, so the statement was false.
Then, several years later, a magazine published an article about the debate and it republished the defamatory statement by Vidal. Republishers of libel are also liable. Buckley then sued the magazine and prevailed again. Both cases were interesting for a number of reasons to those interested in the law of defamation (and I won't go into the details here) but in brief: 1. Buckley agreed to the debate. 2. Buckley is a public figure.
See Buckley v. Vidal
In another case of interest, a couple in Colorado named Quigley (they're Catholic) got involved in a neighborhood dispute with a neighbor woman who was Jewish. The thing escalated to absurd levels and the Jewish woman got the ADL involved. Then, the head of the local chapter of the ADL publicly said that the Quigleys were anti-Semites. The Quigleys sued and won a judgement of $ 10.5 millon dollars against the ADL.
One interesting aspect of this case was the fact that there were tape recordings of Ms. Quigley talking on the telephone to a friend and saying negative things about the neighbor woman that the neighbor woman claimed were anti-Semitic. The jury obviously didn't buy it.
See Quigley v. Rosenthal
The First Amendment is a fascinating area of the law and is highly dependent on case law. As technology changes, the law changes.
More and more Internet and blog cases are working their way through the system these days.
First Amendment cases are always touchy because in this country we do value freedom of speech and we want to allow a robust discussion of issues. At the same time, however, people have a right to not be damaged by false statements of others who can simply log on to their computers and anonymously type the most outrageous things about others.
In Costa Mesa we're seeing a lot of dirty politics as extremists try to hurt Mayor Mansoor with various birds of a feather claims. We were made aware that some national liberal "anti-hate" Website was even carrying a report that Mayor Mansoor carpools to City Council meetings with the editor of the CM PRESS.
Actually, the editor of the CM PRESS has never even been in the same car, bus, plane, train or boat with Mansoor. Not once. So, how did the national outfit get its false information? No doubt it came from the same few extremist individuals who are spreading rumors locally and who are now using the Daily Pilot to get their lies out to the public.
What is going on is that some local extremists supply false information to the national groups who then publish it. Then, the local extremists quote the national liberal groups as their sources.
Some of these people who smear others may not be as anonymous as they think. What some don't realize is the fact that they leave their IP address behind when they visit websites or blogs or email others. These IP addresses can then be translated into street addresses of where the computer is located.
So, if they think they can defame others and hide behind anonymity, they may be surprised to find a process server knocking on their door.
If you want to avoid problems, it's best to address issues and not call people names. If you do call others names, then be sure that they qualify as opinions and not statements that can be proven true or false. Thus, you're probably okay if you call someone a dope, but you may be on very thin ice if you you call them a Nazi.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.
