|
|
|
I have a friend who is threatened to be sued for reporting an accurate
incident on a weblog. A teacher in a class full of students said some
things he perhaps preferred he didn't say. My friend recorded what he
said on her weblog. And now he wants to sue him for slander.
Because she can provide witnesses that what the teacher claimed to do
he actually did, this would seem to an open and shut case, that's
almost ridiculous.
My friend is worried about this situation. What can I advise him to do
to avoid any problems?
|
| |
| |
CuriousBorg wrote:
I have a friend who is threatened to be sued for reporting an accurate
incident on a weblog. A teacher in a class full of students said some
things he perhaps preferred he didn't say. My friend recorded what he
said on her weblog. And now he wants to sue him for slander.
Because she can provide witnesses that what the teacher claimed to do
he actually did, this would seem to an open and shut case, that's
almost ridiculous.
My friend is worried about this situation. What can I advise him to do
to avoid any problems?
Sure he can sue. Will he get any one to care?
Tell your friend [it's always a friend] to sit back and relax and wait for
the court papers to arrive then hire an attorney.
That will probably happen about the 12th of never.
However, "free speech" does not give every one the right to go posting
hearsay statements on an internet site because it's to easy to do.
Was your friend an actual witness to what was said?
if not, that is hearsay and could be very well be slander. Actually, it
would be libel.
Then again, if the wording of the site is such that appears to be an opinion
of the words "allegedly stated by" said person, then there might not be a
case.
Because [sic] "Don't blame me, I'm just quoting".
Same as a reporter stating what he was told by "alleged witnesses" of an
event.
He doesn't know, he wasn't there. He's just quoting the witnesses.
"According to witnesses who were present at the time"
That statement would basically let the writer off the hook.
Wording plays a big role in libel cases.
Be careful of how it's all stated and it should not get to court.
|
| |
| |
CuriousBorg wrote:
Sure he can sue. Will he get any one to care?
Tell your friend [it's always a friend] to sit back and relax and wait for
the court papers to arrive then hire an attorney.
That will probably happen about the 12th of never.
However, "free speech" does not give every one the right to go posting
hearsay statements on an internet site because it's to easy to do.
Was your friend an actual witness to what was said?
if not, that is hearsay and could be very well be slander. Actually, it
would be libel.
PLEASE stop posting legal advice about subjects of which you know absolutely
nothing.
Truth is a defense to defamation. Period. It doesn't matter whether the
poster was an "actual witness" or not.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement admitted to prove the truth of the
matter asserted therein. Hearsay has absolutely nothing, repeat, NOTHING to
do with the OP's discussion of the situation.
If you want to play lawyer, go to law school and get licensed. Otherwise,
stop giving people erroneous advice.
What is it with you?
Then again, if the wording of the site is such that appears to be an
opinion
of the words "allegedly stated by" said person, then there might not be a
case.
Because [sic] "Don't blame me, I'm just quoting".
Same as a reporter stating what he was told by "alleged witnesses" of an
event.
He doesn't know, he wasn't there. He's just quoting the witnesses.
"According to witnesses who were present at the time"
That statement would basically let the writer off the hook.
Wording plays a big role in libel cases.
Be careful of how it's all stated and it should not get to court.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:22:44 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
Then again, if the wording of the site is such that appears to be an opinion
of the words "allegedly stated by" said person, then there might not be a
case.
Because [sic] "Don't blame me, I'm just quoting".
Same as a reporter stating what he was told by "alleged witnesses" of an
event.
He doesn't know, he wasn't there. He's just quoting the witnesses.
"According to witnesses who were present at the time"
That statement would basically let the writer off the hook.
Wording plays a big role in libel cases.
Reporting even "alleged" defamatory remarks can get the "quoter" in big
trouble if he/she does not take due care to ascertain the remarks were
true. Informing the reader that it is someone else's allegation (and
you are just repeating it) is no defense at all and for the purposes of
defamation, a hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement.
Each repetition of a defamatory remark is a new injury. This means that
one can obtain damages for each time the defamatory statement is
repeated in publication, as it passes from one party to another, if the
original party making the allegation is included and the repeater relies
totally upon that person's statement as the truth. In an action for
defamation, the plaintiff must prove simply the defamatory words were
uttered in an effort to harm their reputation.
It is not hearsay (in fact defamation is not covered by the hearsay rule
in most US states and internationally) because the plaintiff is not
relying on their truth but simply exhibiting the fact that the words
were written. Often the plaintiff is seeking to show that the words are
untrue.
So, Z publishing that 'X said this about Y,' with such statement is
presented as the truth of the matter, and Y is harmed by the statement,
which is shown to be false and/or distributed with malice/reckless
disregard for the truth, would give a cause of action by Y against not
only X but also against Z for not ascertaining the truth or falsity of
the statement before publication.
These rules are well-known to the press and other media. Therefore, any
web publisher (such as the 'friend's' weblog) had better consider that
defamation rules also attach to his/her publication as well (as noted in
several court decisions). The only exception would be if the
publication was made under qualified privilege (such as reporting of a
court proceeding, etc.), which doesn't appear to be the case here.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
PLEASE stop posting legal advice about subjects of which you know
absolutely nothing.
Truth is a defense to defamation. Period. It doesn't matter whether the
poster was an "actual witness" or not.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement admitted to prove the truth of the
matter asserted therein. Hearsay has absolutely nothing, repeat, NOTHING
to do with the OP's discussion of the situation.
If you want to play lawyer, go to law school and get licensed.
Otherwise, stop giving people erroneous advice.
What is it with you?
This is a worldwide discussion group concerning matters of any legal type.
There is no mandatory obligation one must have a degree in law to
participate.
As I state many times, if you need legal advice, hire an attorney.
This is not legal advice and never has been.
Answers I give are designed mainly to get the person asking, to think and
act for themselves.
When possible, guiding in hopefully, the right direction.
I do not claim to be an attorney as many do here.
If you feel my answers are wrong, feel free to post what you believe is
correct.
|
| |
| |
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:22:44 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> in
misc.legal, wrote the following:
Then again, if the wording of the site is such that appears to be an
opinion of the words "allegedly stated by" said person, then there might
not be a case. Because [sic] "Don't blame me, I'm just quoting". Same as a
reporter stating what he was told by "alleged witnesses" of an event. He
doesn't know, he wasn't there. He's just quoting the witnesses. "According
to witnesses who were present at the time" That statement would basically
let the writer off the hook. Wording plays a big role in libel cases.
Reporting even "alleged" defamatory remarks can get the "quoter" in big
trouble if he/she does not take due care to ascertain the remarks were
true. Informing the reader that it is someone else's allegation (and
you are just repeating it) is no defense at all and for the purposes of
defamation, a hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement.
Each repetition of a defamatory remark is a new injury. This means that
one can obtain damages for each time the defamatory statement is
repeated in publication, as it passes from one party to another, if the
original party making the allegation is included and the repeater relies
totally upon that person's statement as the truth. In an action for
defamation, the plaintiff must prove simply the defamatory words were
uttered in an effort to harm their reputation.
It is not hearsay (in fact defamation is not covered by the hearsay rule
in most US states and internationally) because the plaintiff is not
relying on their truth but simply exhibiting the fact that the words
were written. Often the plaintiff is seeking to show that the words are
untrue.
So, Z publishing that 'X said this about Y,' with such statement is
presented as the truth of the matter, and Y is harmed by the statement,
which is shown to be false and/or distributed with malice/reckless
disregard for the truth, would give a cause of action by Y against not
only X but also against Z for not ascertaining the truth or falsity of
the statement before publication.
These rules are well-known to the press and other media. Therefore, any
web publisher (such as the 'friend's' weblog) had better consider that
defamation rules also attach to his/her publication as well (as noted in
several court decisions). The only exception would be if the
publication was made under qualified privilege (such as reporting of a
court proceeding, etc.), which doesn't appear to be the case here.
Thank you for the lesson. But that is not my purpose in my posts.
I lean towards pointing out there are questions which must be asked and
answered before one can truly call it libel per se.
Hopefully, the poster will understand that there is more out there for HIM
to acquire the knowledge on.
Then, that person may fully understand what is, and what is not, at stake.
If you were a school teacher, do you just hand your students all they need
to know without them doing anything?
How do we learn? We learn by finding out all we can about the subject at
hand and applying it.
One college professor I had once said, he did not teach that you had to know
every thing in your head all the time, but it was more important that you
knew where to find that information when needed.
After all, trial lawyers can't possibly know every law in the state, and
every court case connected to it right?
Even though hollywood says they can.
|
| |
| |
PTRAVEL wrote:
This is a worldwide discussion group concerning matters of any legal type.
There is no mandatory obligation one must have a degree in law to
participate.
Of course not. The problem is, you speak as if you're an authority and
you're almost always wrong. This has nothing to do with law degrees, but
your insistence on inserting yourself into conversations about which you
have no knowledge, much less expertise, and simply making up answers that
have no basis in anything. Remember "Cliff the Mailman" on Cheers?
If you were simply providing misinformation for its own sake, there wouldn't
be much of a problem. However, there's too much chance that someone will
read what you say, believe it and rely on it.
As I state many times, if you need legal advice, hire an attorney.
This is not legal advice and never has been.
I'm not disputing whether you have a RIGHT to say what you do. That's
another thread. My only point is, since (1) you have no education in the
law, or other qualification that would result in familiarity with the law,
and (2) you are so often wrong, why do you persist in posting these nonsense
answers?
Answers I give are designed mainly to get the person asking, to think and
act for themselves.
When possible, guiding in hopefully, the right direction.
A discussion of hearsay in response to a question about defamation is not
guiding anyone in the right direction, nor will it get a person thinking
about the issues which should concern them.
I do not claim to be an attorney as many do here.
If you feel my answers are wrong, feel free to post what you believe is
correct.
I don't give legal advice over the internet, and never to non-clients. I
post in response to your advice only when other attorneys haven't done the
same already, and only in the interest of not having innocent and naive
people mislead to their detriment.
|
| |
| |
Subject: Re: Internet free speech legal question
From: "Richard" anonymous@127.000
Date: 2/3/2004 7:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <bvocu901hgl@enews2.newsguy.com>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
Then again, if the wording of the site is such that appears to be an
opinion of the words "allegedly stated by" said person, then there might
If they are false. Truth is always a defense to allegations of defamation.
There are some people who construe everything said about them that is critical
as "defamation" and anybody with the means to do so can begin a defamation
action. But to allege malice is not sufficient--for that very reason. A
person cannot allege that he has been damaged by the truth (where Freedom of
Speech exists) unless he can somehow prove "invasion of privacy".
It is not hearsay (in fact defamation is not covered by the hearsay rule
in most US states and internationally) because the plaintiff is not
relying on their truth but simply exhibiting the fact that the words
were written. Often the plaintiff is seeking to show that the words are
untrue.
They had better seek to show that.
Added to that, there is the problem of obtaining jurisdiction over the
defendant.
My guess is that there are as many "reckless"( lacking merit) defamation
actions and SLAPP suits as there are those which are warranted by actual damage
to the plaintiff.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is for discussion purposes only and
should not be construed as legal advice. For legal advice, it is best to
consult an attorney.
"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:00:05 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000>
wrote:
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
Then again, if the wording of the site is such that appears to be an
opinion of the words "allegedly stated by" said person, then there might
Thank you for the lesson.
But you didn't learn it. She was simply reciting the general law
accurately. She was compelled to do so because you were misleading
the poster by acting like you know something.
But that is not my purpose in my posts.
I lean towards pointing out there are questions which must be asked and
answered before one can truly call it libel per se.
Do you know that "libel per se" is a term of legal art, and doesn't
just mean "as such" in the context of a discussion of defamation?
Hopefully, the poster will understand that there is more out there for HIM
to acquire the knowledge on.
Not just "more." He now has to undo the misinformation that you
posted.
Then, that person may fully understand what is, and what is not, at stake.
If you were a school teacher, do you just hand your students all they need
to know without them doing anything?
How do we learn? We learn by finding out all we can about the subject at
hand and applying it.
One college professor I had once said, he did not teach that you had to know
every thing in your head all the time, but it was more important that you
knew where to find that information when needed.
Well, he ain't going to find it from you.
After all, trial lawyers can't possibly know every law in the state, and
every court case connected to it right?
"Knowing the law" isn't what lawyers are about.
- Jon Beaver
|
| |
| |
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
Reporting even "alleged" defamatory remarks can get the "quoter" in big
trouble if he/she does not take due care to ascertain the remarks were
true. Informing the reader that it is someone else's allegation (and
you are just repeating it) is no defense at all and for the purposes of
defamation, a hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement.
At least in some defamation cases in California, it has been
"established" (law of the case), that quoting a Usenet message
elsewhere on Usenet, WITH correct attribution, cannot be defamation.
This SEEMS to contradict your statement, but I haven't researched
the details.
|
| |
| |
Subject: Re: Internet free speech legal question
From: "Arthur L. Rubin" ronnirubin@sprintmail.com
Date: 2/3/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <401FE0F7.DFF0A95C@sprintmail.com>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
At least in some defamation cases in California, it has been
"established" (law of the case), that quoting a Usenet message
elsewhere on Usenet, WITH correct attribution, cannot be defamation.
This SEEMS to contradict your statement, but I haven't researched
the details.
You are correct, Arthur. The case is
Stephen J. Barrett et al vs. Hulda Clark et a . The judge was Richman.
"Judge Richman held that section 230 of the CDA "provides immunity to users, as
well as providers, of interactive computer services." He found that Rosenthal,
"as a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, . . . is
not the publisher or speaker" of statements made by a third person. Thus, Judge
Richman concluded, "she cannot be civilly liable for posting it on the
Internet. She is immune."
Lee Tien, Senior Staff Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF),
the leading Internet civil liberties organization, said "in enacting section
230, Congress tried to protect free speech on the Internet from chilling
threats of costly litigation. This decision will help achieve that goal and
marks a solid victory for free expression. Internet speech would be stifled if
individuals could be found liable for the defamatory statements of others."
Mark Goldowitz, counsel for defendant Rosenthal and the Director of the
California Anti-SLAPP Project, said, "Judge Richman's opinion is significant.
To my knowledge, this is the first court to rule that Internet re-posting is
immune from civil liability under federal law. This ruling greatly advances
freedom of speech on the Internet. Also, it is very rare for a trial court
judge to issue anything even close to a 27-page order."
If one adopts the federal law, then the case is not just significant for
Californians but also citizens of other states.
"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html
|
| |
| |
Subject: Re: Internet free speech legal question From: Jon Beaver jbeaver@NO.com Date: 2/3/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <qtlv10h01tih0jsbnfc7dnrrret13agmu1@4ax.com> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:00:05 -0600, "Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote: But you didn't learn it. She was simply reciting the general law accurately. She was compelled to do so because you were misleading the poster by acting like you know something.
post and my response.
Do you know that "libel per se" is a term of legal art, and doesn't
just mean "as such" in the context of a discussion of defamation?
But he wasn't misleading anyone by saying this, necessarily. He just forgot to
use a comma. Why didn't *you* supply the information, then, that "libel per
se", minus the comma, has to do with damages. In other words, the legal term
means that in cases of libel, damages are assumed and don't have to be proved.
Regardless, the plaintiff still has the burden of proof--that the speech was
false.
Hopefully, the poster will understand that there is more out there for HIM
to acquire the knowledge on.
And he is not the only one, it would seem.
(snip)
Well, he ain't going to find it from you.
"Knowing the law" isn't what lawyers are about.
In many cases, this may be perfectly true, but it's a novel theory,
nonetheless.
"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html
|
| |
| |
On 03 Feb 2004 22:47:59 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
Why didn't *you* supply the information, then, that "libel per
se", minus the comma, has to do with damages. In other words, the legal term
means that in cases of libel, damages are assumed and don't have to be proved.
Regardless, the plaintiff still has the burden of proof--that the speech was
false.
Because "libel per se" is not about damages but the nature of the libel
itself, and as you note, damages do not have to be proved. In short,
libel per se is a libel that is actionable without the plaintiff
introducing any additional facts to show defamation.
The classic case of libel per se is to impugn the unchastity of a
woman, for example. She does not have to prove that she is a virgin to
win her case in court. Even if she is not a virgin and one has said that
she was not a virgin, so what was said was true, one would have still
committed libel per se and must pay her damages.
Libel per se, means 'in itself' or 'on the face of it.' A reader does
not have to interpret or study in order to understand a statement as
libel per se, as it is obvious or evident. Persons libeled in this
manner do not have to prove damage to their reputations, monetary
loss or other injury. Libel per se can support a lawsuit in itself.
Therefore, your second statement about plaintiff "proving" the
statements were false are contradictory to the concept. The statement,
true or not, is considered libelous because of its nature and does not
have to be proved.
Of interest in this regard, see:
http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14130/css/14130_175.htm
Types of Libel
which states, in part:
"There are probably thousands of words, phrases and statements in the
English language that are libelous in themselves. Some of them are
of a political nature, others refer to race or religion and still
others involve specific professions and occupations.
Others (and this is no doubt the largest group) affect the honesty,
integrity or morals of anyone to whom they are applied. Here are just a
few examples of words and phrases you should not use in reference to
individuals or groups:
Professionals.
Attorney: shyster, ambulance chaser, crafty, unprincipled, and slick.
Business person: swindler, racketeer, double-dealer, cheat, and phony.
Politician: liar, grafter, perjurer, seller of influence, pocketer of
public finds, and criminals partner.
Doctor: quack, abortionist, faker, and incompetent.
Also, one should never use such words as crooked and criminal to
describe people or their behavior.
Affiliations. Red, Communist, Nazi, a member of the Klu Klux Klan,
atheist, nudist and socialist (sometimes).
Honesty and Morals. Unreliable, a credit risk, hypocrite, adulterer,
unchaste, prostitute, drunkard, conspirator, mistress and thief."
Such words still constitute libel per se, and are actionable even today.
For example, the actress Nicole Kidman was able to win a libel action
via settlement against the Sunday Telegraph in the UK for impugning her
personal reputation by claiming she had an affair with Cold Mountain
co-star Jude Law. A full retraction and apology,as well as undisclosed
monetary settlement, was reported here in the UK. See also
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749676755.html
Certain words are no longer considered libel per se (such as
'alcoholic') while new words are added as elements of libel per se, such
as 'gay/homosexual' or imputation of a loathsome disease.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:57:11 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> in misc.legal, wrote the following:
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
At least in some defamation cases in California, it has been
"established" (law of the case), that quoting a Usenet message
elsewhere on Usenet, WITH correct attribution, cannot be defamation.
This SEEMS to contradict your statement, but I haven't researched
the details.
My understanding of Barrett v. Clark, which is the case to which you
refer, is that a person who reposts _a written libel by a third person_
cannot be held legally accountable in defamation for its reposting via
Internet. This issue is not the present one in this thread, however.
Our original poster questioned whether a libel action could be sustained
over an entry in a weblog which was offered as the truth of an event by
or statement of a professor, who has threatened to sue for the web
author slander/defamation. The statement by the weblog author is
offered as a true account of the event, either via hearsay of
'witnesses' to the statement or by the weblog author's interpretation of
a comment/s by the professor. Whether it is true or not would be a
matter of legal deliberation: the thread poster did not give full
details (which is probably best to avoid legal action at this time).
My comment had to do with the observation that the weblog author had
better be absolutely clear before posting such comments that what she/he
posts to the weblog is sustainable as true and otherwise meet defamation
restrictions and requirements of due care (such as investigating the
accuracy of a statement, and by what means it is offered, who offers it
as the 'truth' of an event, and whether it can be proven as truth of the
event/statement). A weblog author is, as far as I understand even
Barrett v. Clark, still responsible for his/her _own_ writings, and is
subject to meeting the legal requirements to prevent defamatory remarks
from being published.
In short, Barrett v. Clark only made it clear that _re-posting_ of libel
written by a 3rd party will not hold the reposter legally accountable.
However, what our present weblog author is writing is not a written
re-post of another, but based upon her own account of the event, or an
interpretation of the event based on hearsay of others, which may or may
not be libelous.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
|
| |
| |
Subject: Re: Internet free speech legal question
From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.com
Date: 2/3/2004 4:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <9be020pev73kgrf5qd6351vhc0ikvggv0d@4ax.com>
On 03 Feb 2004 22:47:59 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
term
proved.
Because "libel per se" is not about damages but the nature of the libel
itself, and as you note, damages do not have to be proved. In short,
libel per se is a libel that is actionable without the plaintiff
introducing any additional facts to show defamation.
You misunderstood, I'm afraid. I was not referring to any monetary damages,
but damage to a person's reputation. And I certainly didn't say anything about
"introducing any additional facts". Some things, said about a person, such as
calling them a pedophile (people here who do this every day, please take note)
are presumed to be so damaging to the plaintiff's reputation that he need not
show "how he was damaged" by the speech.
The classic case of libel per se is to impugn the unchastity of a
woman, for example. She does not have to prove that she is a virgin to
win her case in court. Even if she is not a virgin and one has said that
she was not a virgin, so what was said was true, one would have still
committed libel per se and must pay her damages.
What has being a virgin or otherwise have to do with unchaste behavior? That
is certainly a poor example. To say to someone "you are not a virgin" doesn't
imply that the person behaves in a sexually promiscuous way. One can say "you
are not a virgin" to just about any married woman one knows. However, if one
says it to a nun, that may be a different ballgame.
Libel per se, means 'in itself' or 'on the face of it.' A reader does
not have to interpret or study in order to understand a statement as
libel per se, as it is obvious or evident. Persons libeled in this
manner do not have to prove damage to their reputations, monetary
loss or other injury. Libel per se can support a lawsuit in itself.
And how did I say anything to the contrary?
This is from
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/JBOUSHKA/leonard.htm
"In a decision that reaffirmed an old legal chestnut without any consideration
of recent progress in the field of lesbian and gay rights, New York Supreme
Court Justice Lorraine S. Miller ruled that falsely calling somebody gay is
"libel per se," which means that the law will presume that such a false
statement tends to defame a person by injuring his reputation and social
standing.
"Rightly or wrongly, the society in which we live still attaches a stigma to a
person who is labeled a homosexual. Consequently, a depiction which falsely
imputes homosexual behavior constitutes libel per se under our State law."
The law of libel concerns untrue written statements about a person or
organization that would tend to harm the person's reputation and social or
business standing. Under the law concerning libel, a plaintiff normally has the
burden of showing actual, tangible injury as a result of the distribution of
the libelous statement. However, certain kinds of statements are traditionally
considered libelous "per se" because they are so terrible. This means that
serious injury to a person's reputation will be presumed in these cases without
the necessity for proof of harm. Among them are untrue statements that somebody
has committed a serious crime involving moral turpitude, that somebody is
incompetent at their trade or business, that somebody suffers from a "loathsome
disease," or, in the case of a woman, that somebody is "unchaste" or sexually
promiscuous. This last ground is now seen as a real antique, and has been
abandoned in many states. Because homosexual sex was considered a serious crime
involving moral turpitude in virtually all the states from the beginning of the
U.S. until the 1960's, the law traditionally treated a false statement that
somebody was gay as libel per se. Some jurisdictions have begun to abandon that
standard, now that "consensual sodomy" is legal in a majority of the states
(including New York). However, other courts continue to cite older cases and to
apply the libel per se standard, based on the fact that most people in our
society continue to tell pollsters that they believe homosexual conduct is
"always morally wrong."
Justice Miller's opinion follows in this newer tradition, relying on earlier
New York court decisions that themselves relied on even earlier decisions,
dating to the days when sodomy was a serious crime in New York. (During the
1960's, the legislature downgraded consensual sodomy to a misdemeanor, and in
1980 the Court of Appeals ruled that the sodomy law could not be applied to
consenting adults acting in private.) One could debate whether the social
consequences of being falsely labeled as gay by a coworker in a satirical
cartoon in a New York City white collar workplace should be presumed serious
enough to be considered libel per se.
But Justice Miller engages in no such discussion in her "knee-jerk" response.
Perhaps the defendants will appeal this ruling and give higher courts a chance
to engage in some serious analysis of this issue.
Arthur S. Leonard, Professor, New York Law School
Therefore, your second statement about plaintiff "proving" the
statements were false are contradictory to the concept. The statement,
true or not, is considered libelous because of its nature and does not
have to be proved.
You are wrong! What about the defendant? Do you think that person is going to
have no response and simply say "I am guilty of libel"? Look at the above.
If someone calls someone a homosexual, that may be libel per se to some, but
what if it happens to be the truth? (note the word "false" in the above quoted
material) If the defendant provides compelling evidence that the plaintiff is,
indeed a homosexual, then it is going to be up to the plaintiff to prove
otherwise. You appear to believe that there is no defense at all to libel per
se, that calling people certain things implies "just award me the monetary
damages, Judge". However, that is far from true. Every time a plaintiff goes
into court, he is going to wind up backing up his claims--unless there is no
response from the defendant.
"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.
|
| |
| |
Subject: Re: Internet free speech legal question
From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@griffis-consulting.com
Date: 2/3/2004 5:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <56j02017ninfglja04fusnmu8a5mu4cnsf@4ax.com>
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:57:11 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> in misc.legal, wrote the following:
My understanding of Barrett v. Clark, which is the case to which you
refer, is that a person who reposts _a written libel by a third person_
cannot be held legally accountable in defamation for its reposting via
Internet. This issue is not the present one in this thread, however.
Our original poster questioned whether a libel action could be sustained
over an entry in a weblog which was offered as the truth of an event by
or statement of a professor, who has threatened to sue for the web
author slander/defamation. The statement by the weblog author is
offered as a true account of the event, either via hearsay of
'witnesses' to the statement or by the weblog author's interpretation of
a comment/s by the professor. Whether it is true or not would be a
matter of legal deliberation: the thread poster did not give full
details (which is probably best to avoid legal action at this time).
My comment had to do with the observation that the weblog author had
better be absolutely clear before posting such comments that what she/he
posts to the weblog is sustainable as true and otherwise meet defamation
restrictions and requirements of due care (such as investigating the
accuracy of a statement, and by what means it is offered, who offers it
as the 'truth' of an event, and whether it can be proven as truth of the
event/statement). A weblog author is, as far as I understand even
Barrett v. Clark, still responsible for his/her _own_ writings, and is
subject to meeting the legal requirements to prevent defamatory remarks
from being published.
In short, Barrett v. Clark only made it clear that _re-posting_ of libel
written by a 3rd party will not hold the reposter legally accountable.
However, what our present weblog author is writing is not a written
re-post of another, but based upon her own account of the event, or an
interpretation of the event based on hearsay of others, which may or may
not be libelous.
"Judge Richman found that none of the plaintiffs had valid claims against
Rosenthal. He ruled that Rosenthal's statements calling Barrett and
Polevoy "quacks," and Barrett "arrogant" and a "bully" who tried to
"extort" her, were not actionable because "they do not contain provably
false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment."
And that speaks to what you had written about calling someone a quack being
libel per se.
Doctor: quack, abortionist, faker, and >incompetent.
Judge Richman further found that only one statement by Rosenthal was
arguably defamatory -- a document written by someone else which Rosenthal
re-posted to an Internet newsgroup. Judge Richman held that this statement
by Rosenthal was protected under section 230 of the federal Communications
Decency Act (CDA), a law Congress enacted in 1996 expressly "to promote the
continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer
services," which Congress declared should be "unfettered by Federal or
State regulation."
Judge Richman held that section 230 of the CDA "provides immunity to users,
as well as providers, of interactive computer services." He found that
Rosenthal, "as a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a
newsgroup, . . . is not the publisher or speaker" of statements made by a
third person. Thus, Judge Richman concluded, "she cannot be civilly liable
for posting it on the Internet. She is immune."
There is a lot more to all this. In California, and elsewhere, there are
anti-SLAPP laws. If the OP was talking about something related to a public
issue, as was the Barrett case, then there are other ramifications. Judge
Richman, to be best of my knowledge, did not clarify that one was only immune
from reposting "written" statements by another. If one identifies ones source,
as Rosenthal did, then she obviously did not have to research the "truth or
falsity" of the writing. By the same token, if someone writes something on a
website pertaining to a problem of public concern and identifies the source of
the information, how does that individual become any more of a "publisher" than
Ilana Rosenthal?
However, I grant that there is not enough information from the OP to make a
judgment on what his post is all about.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is for discussion purposes only and is
not to be construed as legal advice. For legal advice, it is best to consult
an attorney.
"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html
|
| |
| |
n 04 Feb 2004 02:38:59 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
when I said:
Therefore, your second statement about plaintiff "proving" the
statements were false are contradictory to the concept. The statement,
true or not, is considered libelous because of its nature and does not
have to be proved.
You are wrong! What about the defendant? Do you think that person is going to
have no response and simply say "I am guilty of libel"? Look at the above.
I did: 'tis a shame you did not. Under the general rules of law, the
plaintiff has to assert the statement about him/her is false. He or she
does not have to "prove" they are not homosexual. The presumption of
"proving" they are is up to the Defendant. In some cases, even if the
assertion was true, the intent to injure by making the statement
(malice) is treated as a separate issue, which can still find the
Defendant guilty of defamation (see more on this, below).
If someone calls someone a homosexual, that may be libel per se to some, but
what if it happens to be the truth? (note the word "false" in the above quoted
material)
It's irrelevant in libel per se cases: the point is if one makes the
assertion to delve into the private or intimate affairs of a person's
life which have no other purpose than to damage the person's reputation
in the eyes of society, it's libel*. The issue to the most plaintiffs
today is that charges are false; however, there is no societal purpose
served to "out" an individual, if true - that would be his or her choice
if wished to make it known. The issue in a libel action is whether the
statement was made with the _purpose of injuring a person's reputation,
particularly his career, in so asserting the claim of homosexuality_.
A defamatory statement is one that is false and "tends so to harm the
reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation of the
community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with
him." An embarrassing statement is not necessarily defamatory. Note that
false attribution of criminality is defamatory as a matter of law
[defamation per se].
Black's law dictionary (with solid case law behind it), defines
"defamation" (under which libel and slander are defined) as
"The taking of one's reputation. The offense of injuring a person's
character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The
term seems to include both libel and slander...[omitted 5 case
citations]..."
"The distinction between "criticism" and "defamation" is that criticism
deals only with such things as invite public attention or call for
public comment and does not follow a man into his private life, or pry
into his domestic concerns, and it never attacks the individual but only
his work." [Schwimmer v. Commercial Newspaper Co., 131 Misc. 552, 228
NYS 220,221.]
Black's Law Dictionary, Rev 4th Edition, 1968.
*Thus the issue of claiming a woman "unchaste," which, BTW is always
presumed to mean an unmarried woman, was considered libel per se (as I
said, it's the classic case of libel per se).
Married women, by their nature of being married, are not considered
"chaste," as in virgin. However, married women _do_ have a libel per se
cause of action if it is falsely asserted they are _adulterers_, which
was part of Nicole Kidman's libel action, as Mr. Law was married, and
was being accused of "adultery" as well. Ms. Kidman sued under these
grounds and she, while divorced, has her own rather good reputation to
uphold as well, which was why she prevailed in the false claims of an
affair between Mr. Law and herself.
All Kidman had to do is a) present the fact the Sunday Telegraph made
the statement (which was published, after all) ; b) the statement was
false; and c) such statement had an injurious effect on her personal
and/or professional reputation. She didn't have to "prove" she wasn't
having an affair with Law, thus committing adultery.
Had the Telegraph evidence to the contrary, it was incumbent upon THEM
to show to the Court the statement was true. They didn't, and thus
settled with Kidman.
If the defendant provides compelling evidence that the plaintiff is,
indeed a homosexual, then it is going to be up to the plaintiff to prove
otherwise. You appear to believe that there is no defense at all to libel per
se, that calling people certain things implies "just award me the monetary
damages, Judge". However, that is far from true. Every time a plaintiff goes
into court, he is going to wind up backing up his claims--unless there is no
response from the defendant.
No, he doesn't. It is always incumbent in _any_ defamation action upon
the Defendant to "prove" the truth of the statement, not the Plaintiff
to "prove" its falsity. It is also incumbent upon the Defendant to show
he or she took "due care" to be sure that assertions about a Plaintiff
must meet the legal standard of truth to counter a defamation claim.
All a Plaintiff has to do is show evidence the statement was made by the
Defendant, it was false, and they were injured by the statement. They
may or may not show evidence of the damages (in the case of libel
actions, most Plaintiffs usually do), but the Plaintiff comes into court
correctly asserting that it is the _Defendant_ who has to PROVE the
truth of their own statements in a defamation claim, as the presumption
of law goes with the Plaintiff's assertion of the falsity of the claim
until proven otherwise.
If one is informed by the offended party that the statements one has
made are false, and it is proved [legally] that such statements _are_
false, as to fact and/or accuracy, then further continued statements
against the party (after being informed of their falsity) can go to
showing of malice* on one's part against the offended party.
A showing of malice goes to the assessment of damages against the party
making the false statements, specifically punitive damages.
* defined as the 'intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause
or excuse, with an intent to inflict injury, or under circumstances that
the law will imply an evil intent.' [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edit.
(Rev.), West: 1968].
In libel per se specifically, a Plaintiff merely has to assert the
Defendant made the statement, the statement is false, and the effect of
the statement is injurious to his or her reputation, as the libelous
nature of the statement is self-evident. This was also made clear in
another New York case, _Mario Chiavarelli v. Roy Williams_ as well,
where the only offer of proof was the Defendant's own written words:
http://www.lawinfo.com/v-s-pages/nyjury_reporter.html
Mario Chiavarelli v. Roy Williams
120691/96 4-day trial
Verdict 8/11/99 New York Supreme Court
"...Defendant was a senior resident who rotated through Plaintiff's
depart
|
| |
| |
n 04 Feb 2004 03:42:40 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
In short, Barrett v. Clark only made it clear that _re-posting_ of libel
written by a 3rd party will not hold the reposter legally accountable.
However, what our present weblog author is writing is not a written
re-post of another, but based upon her own account of the event, or an
interpretation of the event based on hearsay of others, which may or may
not be libelous.
"Judge Richman found that none of the plaintiffs had valid claims against
Rosenthal. He ruled that Rosenthal's statements calling Barrett and
Polevoy "quacks," and Barrett "arrogant" and a "bully" who tried to
"extort" her, were not actionable because "they do not contain provably
false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment."
And that speaks to what you had written about calling someone a quack being
libel per se.
Judge Richman further found that only one statement by Rosenthal was
arguably defamatory -- a document written by someone else which Rosenthal
re-posted to an Internet newsgroup. Judge Richman held that this statement
by Rosenthal was protected under section 230 of the federal Communications
Decency Act (CDA), a law Congress enacted in 1996 expressly "to promote the
continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer
services," which Congress declared should be "unfettered by Federal or
State regulation."
Judge Richman held that section 230 of the CDA "provides immunity to users,
as well as providers, of interactive computer services." He found that
Rosenthal, "as a user of an interactive computer service, that is, a
newsgroup, . . . is not the publisher or speaker" of statements made by a
third person. Thus, Judge Richman concluded, "she cannot be civilly liable
for posting it on the Internet. She is immune."
She is immune ONLY in the case of the re-posting of the libel. Had
Rosenthal written the post _herself_, then she could have been held
accountable for defamation in a court of law.
There is a lot more to all this. In California, and elsewhere, there are
anti-SLAPP laws. If the OP was talking about something related to a public
issue, as was the Barrett case, then there are other ramifications. Judge
Richman, to be best of my knowledge, did not clarify that one was only immune
from reposting "written" statements by another.
He explicitly states such! Richman:
"In sum, the Court concludes that, with one exception, the publications
attributed to Rosenthal are not statements of fact, and thus will not
support any plaintiff's claim for libel. The one exception, that is, the
one statement that appears to be factual, is the posting by Rosenthal of
the self-described "opinion piece" by Tim Bolen claiming plaintiff
Polevoy stalked Christine McPhee, and the Court turns to discussion of
that statement.
iv) Rosenthal's Statement About Polevoy Is Protected By Federal Law
The Complaint alleges in pertinent part that sometime after August 14,
2000 Rosenthal "repeatedly posted" to newsgroups "at least one" libelous
message, (Paragraph 18), which message was that Polevoy stalked
Christine McPhee. Because Plaintiffs specifically pleaded that such
message was in fact originally posted by Tim Bolen and was reposted by
Rosenthal, Rosenthal's moving papers contended that 47 U.S.C. 230
shielded her from liability. Plaintiffs' Opposition eschewed any
reference to, much less discussion of, this argument and Rosenthal's
Reply urged that the issue was conceded. At the hearing the Court
confronted counsel for Plaintiffs about this, and Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Memorandum does address the issue. (Supplemental
Memorandum, hereinafter cited "Supp. Opp.," 5:21-10:14.) But
|
| |
| |
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg wrote:
On 03 Feb 2004 22:47:59 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
[snip]
Others (and this is no doubt the largest group) affect the honesty,
integrity or morals of anyone to whom they are applied. Here are just a
few examples of words and phrases you should not use in reference to
individuals or groups:
Professionals.
Attorney: shyster, ambulance chaser, crafty, unprincipled, and slick.
Nonsense! Everybody wants a slick, crafty, unprincipled ambulance
chaser as a shyster-- er, I mean, attorney. :)
And for most of them, those phrases would constitute a compliment.
|
| |
| |
Subject: Re: Internet free speech legal question
From: Katherine Griffis-Greenberg egylist@REMOVETHISgriffis-consulting.com
Date: 2/4/2004 3:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <9tk120pvmb06om2m55jclbkr5vpsneod1f@4ax.com>
On 04 Feb 2004 02:38:59 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
when I said:
Therefore, your second statement about plaintiff "proving" the
statements were false are contradictory to the concept. The statement,
true or not, is considered libelous because of its nature and does not
have to be proved.
to
I did: 'tis a shame you did not. Under the general rules of law, the
plaintiff has to assert the statement about him/her is false. He or she
does not have to "prove" they are not homosexual. The presumption of
"proving" they are is up to the Defendant.
Which is exactly what I said--except you conveniently left out that part of the
post.
I am tired of you repeating what I have already written, quoting me out of
context and your long-winded messages that go on unnecessarily forever. And
just to prove my point about what it is you do--here is the original from me:
You:
Therefore, your second statement about plaintiff "proving" the
statements were false are contradictory to the concept. The statement,
true or not, is considered libelous because of its nature and does not
have to be proved.
What I actually wrote:
You are wrong! What about the defendant? Do you think that person is going
to
have no response and simply say "I am guilty of libel"? Look at the above.
If someone calls someone a homosexual, that may be libel per se to some, but
what if it happens to be the truth? (note the word "false" in the above quoted
material) If the defendant provides compelling evidence that the plaintiff is,
indeed a homosexual, then it is going to be up to the plaintiff to prove
otherwise. You appear to believe that there is no defense at all to libel per
se, that calling people certain things implies "just award me the monetary
damages, Judge". However, that is far from true. Every time a plaintiff goes
into court, he is going to wind up backing up his claims--unless there is no
response from the defendant.>
In some cases, even if the
assertion was true, the intent to injure by making the statement
(malice) is treated as a separate issue, which can still find the
Defendant guilty of defamation (see more on this, below).
Oh what a gleeful concept! The malicious truth!
Whatever happened to "the truth will set you free?"
If someone calls someone a homosexual, that may be libel per se to some, but
what if it happens to be the truth? (note the word "false" in the above
quoted
It's irrelevant in libel per se cases: the point is if one makes the
assertion to delve into the private or intimate affairs of a person's
life which have no other purpose than to damage the person's reputation
in the eyes of society, it's libel*. The issue to the most plaintiffs
today is that charges are false; however, there is no societal purpose
served to "out" an individual, if true - that would be his or her choice
if wished to make it known. The issue in a libel action is whether the
statement was made with the _purpose of injuring a person's reputation,
particularly his career, in so asserting the claim of homosexuality_.
A defamatory statement is one that is false
But you just said it doesn't matter if it false. Even if it is true, it is
just "libel per se". Frankly, if I were a homosexual, I would not care to try
to sue someone for saying I am, even if the fact were not publicly known.
Especially if a jury was present. I would doubt that a jury of my peers would
be likely to award me any damages over my reputation if I came on the stand
talking like Richard Simmons. The only homosexual I ever heard of that
actually sued a British newspaper for alleging the same was LIBERACE! And he
won! Ah, yes, justice....
and "tends so to harm the
reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation of the
community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with
him." An embarrassing statement is not necessarily defamatory. Note that
false attribution of criminality is defamatory as a matter of law
[defamation per se].
I should hope that the days are over where anybody who is a homosexual would be
considered a criminal or sue someone who correctly asserted that he was gay.
I, personally, have never encountered a homosexual who was ashamed of being gay
or cared if anybody knew about it.
Now you, yourself are talking "false >attribution". Make up your mind!
(sigh) Please don't tell me what I am talking about until you figure out what
you're talking about.
Black's law dictionary (with solid case law behind it), defines
"defamation" (under which libel and slander are defined) as
"The taking of one's reputation. The offense of injuring a person's
character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The
term seems to include both libel and slander...[omitted 5 case
citations]..."
"The distinction between "criticism" and "defamation" is that criticism
deals only with such things as invite public attention or call for
public comment and does not follow a man into his private life, or pry
into his domestic concerns, and it never attacks the individual but only
his work." [Schwimmer v. Commercial Newspaper Co., 131 Misc. 552, 228
NYS 220,221.]
Black's Law Dictionary, Rev 4th Edition, 1968.
*Thus the issue of claiming a woman "unchaste," which, BTW is always
presumed to mean an unmarried woman, was considered libel per se (as I
said, it's the classic case of libel per se).
Married women, by their nature of being married, are not considered
"chaste," as in virgin. However, married women _do_ have a libel per se
cause of action if it is falsely asserted they are _adulterers_, which
was part of Nicole Kidman's libel action, as Mr. Law was married, and
was being accused of "adultery" as well. Ms. Kidman sued under these
grounds and she, while divorced, has her own rather good reputation to
uphold as well, which was why she prevailed in the false claims of an
affair between Mr. Law and herself.
YAWN
All Kidman had to do is a) present the fact the Sunday Telegraph made
the statement (which was published, after all) ; b) the statement was
false; and c) such statement had an injurious effect on her personal
and/or professional reputation. She didn't have to "prove" she wasn't
having an affair with Law, thus committing adultery.
YAWN again. Yes, we established that above,
|
| |
| |
n 04 Feb 2004 21:37:01 GMT, marianneluban@aol.comnospam (MarianneLuban)
in misc.legal, wrote the following:
In some cases, even if the
Oh what a gleeful concept! The malicious truth!
Whatever happened to "the truth will set you free?"
There are some areas of a person's life, true or not, which have no
right to publication to others without their permission, and use of that
information with an intent to defame them (using Black's legal
definition of defamation cited earlier) is considered as defamatory as a
false statement which defames. That is the law: live with it.
If someone calls someone a homosexual, that may be libel per se to some, but
what if it happens to be the truth? (note the word "false" in the above
quoted
material)
It's irrelevant in libel per se cases: the point is if one makes the
assertion to delve into the private or intimate affairs of a person's
life which have no other purpose than to damage the person's reputation
in the eyes of society, it's libel*. The issue to the most plaintiffs
today is that charges are false; however, there is no societal purpose
served to "out" an individual, if true - that would be his or her choice
if wished to make it known. The issue in a libel action is whether the
statement was made with the _purpose of injuring a person's reputation,
particularly his career, in so asserting the claim of homosexuality_.
A defamatory statement is one that is false
But you just said it doesn't matter if it false. Even if it is true, it is
just "libel per se". Frankly, if I were a homosexual, I would not care to try
to sue someone for saying I am, even if the fact were not publicly known.
Especially if a jury was present.
Depends: many people who are homosexual do not care to be outed,
especially in certain societies which attach a stigma to (or even a
criminal statute against) such a lifestyle. This includes the US as well
as other countries. Your own cited case from New York noted the stigma
was still a problem, and indeed, it is still legally libel per se to
accuse someone of homosexuality in an effort to defame them - true or
not (see below).
The reality is most people will sue over _false_ statements which
attribute some claim about them which is not true. It is up to the
Defendant to prove it, and if he/she cannot, then the presumption is the
statement is without merit and the defamation claim will prevail.
However, in libel per se, true or not, asserting certain "facts" about a
person in an effort to "lower their esteem" in society will have just as
detrimental effect. The case of a lobbyist for the Communist Party
(though not a party member) is an example of where a true statement made
to defame is still libelous, because of _the way it was presented_ to
third parties.
In the Baltzel v. Smith case, the Plaintiff (Baltzel) came from a German
family. Because Smith alleged Baltzel was in fact related directly to
Himmler (which was the _untrue_ portion of the defamation), Baltzel, an
art collector, nonetheless had severe professional and personal damages
as a result of these claims _based upon the way her German heritage was
presented_.
Smith's allegation to Museum Security Network, which was broadcast
across the Internet, claimed she was not only a Nazi (by family
implication*), but had stolen artworks from Germany and Europe as well
(implication of criminal activity related to Holocaust activities). The
latter claim was thoroughly false, but the way Smith presented the
former claim (he stated in his e-mail to the Museum Security Network he
"believed" she said she was related to Himmler, but was certain she said
she was "...grand daughter [sic] of one of Adolph Hitlers right-hand
men." **) would be considered under the law just as defamatory per se,
even if true (Baltzel asserted she had not made such a statement,
however).
* From his e-mail, as recounted in the Court's decision:
"...I believe these paintings were looted during WWII
and are the rightful legacy of the Jewish people. Her
address is [omitted]. I also believe that the descendants of criminals
should not be persecuted for the crimes of the [sic]
fathers, nor should they benefit..."
** From decision, the summary of the event went as follows:
"Smit | | |
