“The Colombian Coffee Growers Federation says it will sue ‘Mother Goose & Grimm’ cartoonist Mike Peters ‘for damage and harm, detriment to intellectual property and defamation.'” SSFC reprints the cartoon at issue and adds, “Only a reader whose second language is English might take this as a literal statement that Colombian coffee, like Soylent Green, is made of people.”
Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’
Why defamation law protects opinion
“Wouldn’t that make for an entertaining factual inquiry: ‘The court finds as a matter of fact that the supermodel is/is not “a skank”‘” (Planet Kauai, Jan. 7). Underlying story:
Canadian model Liskula Cohen has sued Google for a number of snarky remarks that were made by a blogger using the company’s Blogger service. The NY Daily News reports that the former Vogue cover girl has been called ‘skanky’ and ‘an old hag’ by an anonymous blogger on a website called Skanks in NYC (could be deemed NSFW).
(Robin Wauters, TechCrunch/Washington Post, Jan. 7). It should be noted that the site seems to have little purpose but to engage in vitriolic attacks on Cohen, not all of which are as obviously grounded in “opinion” as those quoted. More: ArsTechnica, Bayard/Citizen Media Law.
ABA publishes flattering book as part of lawsuit settlement
Kudos to Law Librarian Blog (via Ambrogi) for this astonishing story: longtime readers may remember the bizarre defamation case filed by Philadelphia lawyer Richard Sprague against the American Bar Association over an article in which Terry Carter, a respected veteran of legal journalism, had described Sprague as “perhaps the most powerful lawyer-cum-fixer” in the state of Pennsylvania. Although the word “fixer” is long established in its meaning of “political wheeler-dealer and problem-solver”, a sense which cannot be said to imply any illegality, Sprague argued that in this instance it implied that he “fixed” legal cases. When the settlement was announced, its terms were disclosed only in part: Shannon P. Duffy of the Legal Intelligencer quoted Sprague’s lawyer, the very powerful James Beasley Jr., as saying it was a “damned good settlement.” Pennsylvania and Philadelphia in particular, as I’ve had occasion to note in the past, have a local tradition of plaintiff-friendly jurisprudence for public figures that is almost enough to make you wonder whether they exist as part of the same country as the rest of us who publish under the Times v. Sullivan regime.
But I never anticipated what was to emerge next from the ABA/Sprague entanglement. Here’s the first paragraph of Robert Ambrogi’s blog entry:
The American Bar Association’s book division recently published Fearless: The Richard A. Sprague Story. The ABA calls the biography the chronicle of “the significant events of a renowned Philadelphia lawyer” and the “compelling story of a man who wasn’t afraid to risk everything to fight for his fellow man.” Amidst all this praise for the book, the ABA never mentions that it agreed to publish it only as part of a settlement of Sprague’s libel lawsuit against it.
Sprague long represented Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo but eventually fell out with him; he makes a cameo appearance in this vignette which itself tells much about the, um, vigorous way some figures in the Philadelphia political establishment deal with their critics. Fumo is now the defendant in a spectacular trial on corruption charges that itself deserves much more national attention than it has received. More: Philadelphia Daily News.
More from Ken at Popehat: “I’ve seen many things exchanged in aid of settlement — money, real property, personal property, apologies, handshakes, and a wide variety of promises. … However, before now, I had never seen a litigant promise to act as a vanity press.” And attorney/blogger Max Kennerly of the Beasley Firm also has a comment giving further background on the controversies, as well as on the Fumo trial, which he’s been blogging.
“MPs accuse courts of allowing libel tourism”
Sounds like British libel law is finally getting seriously controversial in Britain: “Lawyers and judges were accused by MPs yesterday of using ‘Soviet-style’ English libel laws to help the rich and powerful to hide their secrets. …Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, told MPs that the Government would announce a consultation on libel and the internet, and the high cost of defamation proceedings.” (Dominic Kennedy, Times Online, Dec. 18).
Elton John loses Guardian libel case
Another indication that British courts may be steering defamation law away from its highly pro-plaintiff posture of the past: “In a groundbreaking libel decision, the judge said that ‘irony’ and ‘teasing’ do not amount to defamation.” The entertainer Elton John had sued over a spoof “diary” that depicted his involvement in a major AIDS charity as insincere and self-serving.
“It’s significant,” said media law expert Mark Stephens of the ruling. “What [Mr. Justice] Tugendhat has done is move us closer to the US system where you can’t get damages for satire and humour, except in the most exceptional cases.”
(Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Dec. 13).
Royall pain to his critics
Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit and Run” (Dec. 10):
I want to write a blog post about H. Walker Royall, the Dallas developer who sues people when they criticize his abuse of eminent domain, but I’m afraid he’ll sue me. After all, he sued Wright Gore III over a website that detailed the city of Freeport’s attempt to condemn land occupied by the Western Seafood Company, a business owned by Gore’s family, so Royall could use it for a luxury marina project. And he sued Carla Main, a journalist who wrote a book about the legal struggle over the Gores’ land, along with her publisher, Encounter Books [also a publisher of mine — W.O.]. He sued University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, one of the country’s leading authorities on eminent domain, for writing a blurb that appeared on the cover of Main’s book. He even sued two newspapers that published reviews of the book.
So after thinking carefully about my potential legal exposure, I have decided not to say that Royall…
I can’t go on. I just can’t. I’m so scared of Royall that I can’t even repeat the colorful epithets that Sullum might apply to Royall if he dared (which he doesn’t) for fear that Royall will then find some excuse to sue me too. But you can go read them if you dare. More: Tim Sandefur, PLF on Eminent Domain.
“Bumping” online item not republication for purposes of defamation law
Thus a New York lower-court judge has ruled (NYLJ).
“Chiropractor Sues Patient Over Negative Yelp Review”
San Francisco: “Chris Norberg left a negative review on Yelp after he got into a billing dispute with chiropractor Steven Biegel. Instead of quietly fuming like most people who get bad reviews on Yelp do, Biegel sued Norberg for defamation.” (Consumerist, Nov. 25, via Happy Hospitalist; defendant’s website).
November 29 roundup
- Disturbing implications from Lori Drew case of criminalizing website “terms of service” [Kerr @ Volokh and more; earlier]
- Not quite what lawprof proponents of the class action format had in mind? Proposed law in South Korea “would allow businesses who suffer financial losses due to violent public protests to file class actions” against protesters [Korea Times via Karlsgodt, Class Action Blawg]
- BlockShopper retains high-powered First Amendment attorney to fend off Jones Day’s don’t-blog-about-us suit [Ambrogi; earlier here, etc.]
- New filings in pro wrestlers’ labor suit against WWE [Schwartz; earlier here and here]
- “Brits Propose Potential Life Sentence for Johns” [Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”]
- Narrowing “fair report” privilege, N.J. appeals court decides reporters can be liable for publishing defamatory allegations in court filing, while lawyers still immunized when they put those allegations there [Feral Child, Media Law, CT Blue; Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, PDF]
- It’ll be hard to live up to some of the high praise for my new web project with Heather Mac Donald, John Derbyshire, Razib Khan et al, Secular Right [D.R. Tucker, Human Events “Right Angle”; some other reactions]
- Late in catching up on this, but Target in August agreed to pay $6 million to settle the big lawsuit over accessibility of its website to blind users [The Recorder; Ben Duranske discusses implications for virtual online worlds]
“Man sues for libel after being called a D-bag”
Clark County, Nevada: “A man claims Simon & Schuster defamed him in the book “Hot Chicks with Douchebags.” The man says his photo was taken without proper consent, and that he is not, in fact, a you-know-what. (Courthouse News, Nov. 18 via Justin Levine, Patterico; The Smoking Gun). Earlier here (different suit) and, relatedly, here. More: On Point News (protected “opinion”?)