"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
A Blogger Victory
By Greg L | 13 March 2007 | Blogs | 9 Comments
There aren’t a whole lot of bloggers facing defamation suits out there, and this week, there’s one less. A pretty significant case against a blogger by the name of Michael Broadkorb in Minnesota was dismissed a couple of days ago, which firms up a bit the legal argument that when discussing public figures, the standards established in New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan should apply to bloggers as well as more traditional media outlets. Those standards require a plaintiff to prove “actual malice”, which would involve knowingly making false statements and being reckless with the truth, in order to prevail in a defamation lawsuit. It’s an intentionally high standard which helps to reinforce First Amendment guarantees of a free press.
This high standard ensures that the media cannot easily be silenced by public figures who are uncomfortable with what is being reported. That this standard applies equally to bloggers as it has long applied to newspapers has been a subject of debate, and at least in this case the decision is that it does. There’s not much of a distinction between the function of a newspaper and that of a blog, and having the rules apply consistently between the “new media” and the “old media” seems logical.
Since this was decided in a county district court in another state, the ruling isn’t binding in Virginia. The ruling however doesn’t seem to rely on any state law, however, and the arguments which lead to this dismissal should be equally valid in Virginia as they were in Minnesota, making the decision potentially informative on some level outside of the jurisdiction in which it was decided. There’s at least one case like this pending in Virginia, and this decision might possibly have some impact on that case, although there are other Virginia bloggers with legal backgrounds who can probably weigh in more conclusively on this point. Yes, the Steve Chapman case still drags along in Prince William County at a positively glacial pace with little going on other than endlessly rescheduling various hearings and motions. I doubt that’s as frustrating to anyone more than it is to myself.
Eventually the legal framework for Virginia bloggers will become more firmly understood, which should cut down somewhat on the number of threatening letters which end up being delivered to bloggers who do local reporting and cover controversial topics. Unfortunately it’s going to take a couple of these cases to be adjudicated before that happens, and that seems to take an inordinate amount of time. With cases like this one coming to a conclusion perhaps the wait isn’t going to be too much longer.
H/T: Brian Patton
UPDATE: More on this case is available on the First Amendment Center website.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
9 Comments
Views: 857
Loading ...
Speaking of such things, where does your fandango with Chapman stand?
It drags on interminably. We’re not even through discovery motions yet.
The case law developed in this Minnesota case would not be binding on Virginia courts as you correctly note, but could be considered by the court as being persuasive. Obviously it is a lesser standard, but when courts are dealing with new issues (or new takes on old issues), they tend to see what else may be happening in that particular field in other states.
Greg Letik,
don’t let this make you too happy. I will use my superer legal mind to win the case against you. Look for the letter I am sending you from the law frim of Earnest and Julio Gallo. I am also taking up the case of Gill. We are not disptuing that he once worked for a man convicted to tourism. We are disputing your caricterising him as “fat”. As I worte in my earlier correspnedence, he is not “fat”, he is big-boned.
“Not Jad”?
strange, I see a definite similarity in your prose stylings to those of Miss Emily Litella…
Ernest Gallo just died last Friday at the age of 97.
Keep in mind that, for the higher standard apply, you must first prove that the person who is the subject of the commentary is a “public figure” as that term is understood in First Amendment case law. Not everyone involved in political life is.
Interesting idea. I wonder if a candidate for office can ever be considered anything but a “public figure”, especially when their campaign activities are in every way an attempt to elevate their stature and name recognition by the public. I can understand how there might be an argument about whether a campaign volunteer or a non-public-facing staffer is a “public figure”, but for the candidates themselves, I doubt anyone can allege that they’re not.
“I can understand how there might be an argument about whether a campaign volunteer or a non-public-facing staffer is a “public figure”, but for the candidates themselves, I doubt anyone can allege that they’re not.”
I’m confident that you wouldn’t have to reach at all, to prove a declared candidate for office (whether filed or yet-to-file) is a public figure. Also, a campaign worker who speaks for a campaign, to include a campaign manager would also likely meet the threshold of “public figure”. I would also believe people closely associated with a candidate, who have made public statements on one issue or another, would fall into this category, provided the context is relevant. Who might these people be? I think business partners would fall into this category. An associate who has never made a public statement might not meet the test.
But this is neither here nor there. The individuals that Greg is most concerned about are, without a doubt, public figures.