Eugene Volokh points out that you can’t be found liable for defaming a city, notwithstanding a nastygram sent by the Pomona, Calif. city attorney to the Foothill Cities weblog (May 11). The weblog has pulled down the posts in question, which reported on rumors involving the city manager and others in the city’s employ: “We’re going to let Goliath win this one”. (May 11).
Related posts
In bloggers and the law; libel slander and defamation; nastygrams; online speech
From the remaining commentary, the blog alleged sexual conduct by an old official with a young woman. Names were named.
So, this was not disparagement of governance, which is absolutely protected. The lawyer included an unfortunate phrase alluding to the city’s reputation.
I am surprised by Prof. Volokh’s missing this point.
The bigger question for him is whether an anonymous character, a fictional entity, the blog may label an utterance as a rumor, and still be sued for libel of real people. What if the libel were of another fictional but identifiable character (identifiable to co-workers, for example)?
As a fictional character, I think about those questions.
Even assuming that the reportage was false and injurious, Glenn Reynolds asks, “why is the City Attorney making legal threats on behalf of a private interest? Because the city has no interest in not being libeled, and the City Manager’s interest is a personal one. Does the City Attorney routinely do personal legal work for city officials?”