We’ve previously commented on how Florida courts’ interpretation of “false light” doctrine permits attorneys to litigate against newspapers for truthful reporting. The Florida legislature is considering closing the court-created loophole; the Orlando Sentinel thinks it can’t come soon enough.
Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’
Lott v. Levitt III
A commenter writes: “In the context of refereed economics journals, ‘replicate’ has one meaning only: The use of an author’s data and model to ensure that falsification of findings is not an issue.” Is this so? Here are some more data points, emphasis added in each case:
Lott v. Levitt II
I appear to have been too generous to Lott’s complaint when I first criticized it. William Ford, a Bigelow teacher at University of Chicago Law, has posted a devastating two-part analysis (via Wright) of the main count of Lott’s complaint. In the first part, he shows that “replication” does not have the “clear and unambiguous” meaning ascribed to it; in the second, he finds examples of Lott himself using “replicate” in meanings other than the definition in his complaint. Lott critic-in-chief Tim Lambert finds some more examples of the use of “replicate” that appear to exonerate Levitt’s phrasing—though Lambert fudges the National Academy of Science report, which says something rather different about replicating Lott’s results than what Levitt said in Freakonomics.
The case won’t necessarily get thrown out of court; Lott still has the second count, an errant e-mail sent by Levitt to a Texas economist accusing Lott of buying articles. But unless he can demonstrate that Levitt repeated that accusation in more than a stray e-mail, or was making other libelous allegations, potential damages look nominal for that count: the big-money claim is in the first count.
John Lott sues Steven Levitt for libel
Not the soundest means of establishing academic credibility or resolving academic disagreements. (Michael Higgins, “Best-seller leads scholar to file lawsuit”, Chicago Tribune, Apr. 11) (h/t Slim). (Full disclosure: Lott was a former colleague of mine at AEI, and once gave me a ride home.)
Update, via Bill Barth, here is the registration-free Bloomberg account by Kevin Orland. The case is Lott v. Levitt, 06-CV-2007 (N.D. Ill.) (Castillo, J.).
Second update: we have a copy of the complaint. See after the jump.
Update: Danish Muslim groups to sue over cartoons
27 Muslim groups in Denmark have announced their intent to sue the newspaper Jyllands-Posten for defamation in a Danish court, and also plan to “report Denmark to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights for failing to prosecute the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad”. (Jenny Booth and news agencies, “Danish Muslims sue over Muhammad cartoons”, The Times (U.K.), Mar. 17). Earlier coverage: Mar. 4, Feb. 14 (Muslims in Calgary, Alberta plan to sue), Feb. 10, etc.
Update: assigning air carrier poor safety grade not defamation
Following up on our item of last May 12: the Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals ruled last year that the safety rating group ARGUS (Aviation Research Group) had not defamed Aviation Charter Inc. in 2001 by assigning the charter operator its lowest safety rating, “DNQ” or “Does Not Qualify”. Aviation Charter Inc. operated the plane whose crash a year later, in 2002, killed Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and seven others. The Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the suit, saying ARGUS’s comparative ratings involved subjective interpretations of data and were not “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false”. So for now, at least, it seems that if you want to rate air carriers’ safety, go ahead and rate away. (“Court decisions: Air carrier’s poor safety rating isn’t defamatory”, National Law Journal, Aug. 1, 2005, not online).
Update: Trump decamps to Camden
Caesar’s forum-shopping dept.: Donald Trump has filed his $5 billion defamation suit against author and New York Times reporter Timothy O’Brien (see Jan. 25, Feb. 12) not in the courts of some boringly obvious place like, say, Manhattan, but in Camden, New Jersey, which happens to be “where his golf buddy, George Norcross II, the state’s behind-the-scenes political kingmaker, holds court. In 2001, Norcross, an exec at Commerce Bank, was caught on tape boasting of having engineered a judgeship for a political foe ‘just to get rid of him.’ Norcross’s claim to control the New Jersey courts was only bluster, his longtime lawyer, William Tambussi, said at the time. Tambussi has also been retained by Trump in his suit.” (Geoffrey Gray, “Intelligencer: Trump’s Jersey Trump Card”, New York, Mar. 13).
No more anonymous commenting
…if a New Jersey legislator gets his way. (Reason “Hit and Run”, Mar. 7). The idea is to make sure legal remedies are available “to persons injured by false or defamatory messages posted on public forum websites”. More: Michael Krauss. Update May 9: the legislator is reportedly going to withdraw the bill, following a storm of online criticism (via Reynolds).
Sued by politico, Canadian blogger backs down
Mark Bourrie, who puts out the blog Ottawa Watch, indulged in some unkind comments at the expense of Warren Kinsella, a prominent operative in Canada’s Liberal Party. Then Kinsella filed a libel action demanding C$600,000. (Jorge Barrera, Ottawa Sun, Feb. 15; Jay Currie, Feb. 15). Although numerous well-wishers urged Bourrie to resist in court, the two sides settled the case within about a week and Bourrie published an apologetic note on his blog. Sequence of posts at Ottawa Watch: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh.
Deep pocket files: Ernst v. Chen’s Restaurant
66-year-old Daniel Ernst was paralyzed from the chest down when drunk-driving Timothy Beauregard hit him with his Oldsmobile while making a left turn. “Beauregard admitted to a criminal charge of drunken driving, seriously bodily injury resulting, the next year and received a 10-year suspended sentence with probation from Superior Court Judge Edwin J. Gale.” Beauregard wasn’t visibly drunk when Chen’s Restaurant served him a mai tai and a beer, but a jury found the restaurant 25% responsible for the accident, which puts Chen’s entirely on the $15.2 million damages hook under Rhode Island law, a detail the press account omits. (This assumes, of course, that one who drinks mai tais in Chen’s Restaurant in Westerly, Rhode Island, is not capable of paying a 75% share of a $15.2 million judgment.) (Katie Mulvaney, “Veteran hit by drunken driver nets $15.2 million”, Providence Journal, Feb. 14). Rhode Islanders Against Lawsuit Abuse will be seeking to reform the state’s joint and several liability laws this legislative session.