The other day, when I opined on defamation law and the vindictive and authoritarian way some establishment types would like to see it used to rein in bloggers like me, one of the examples I used was that of my friend Carla and the way she infuriated the pusillanimous pantywaists that patrol the comment threads at Blue Oregon. Carla had merely suggested, after laying out supporting evidence, that “it’s my belief” that a well known lobbyist was involved in feeding negative stories to the press, and it was for this act of subjective speculation that a handful of trolls relentlessly warned her about crossing a line that could lead to financial ruin.
In truth, they didn’t just warn Carla, they gloated over the notion that she might be dragged into court on defamation charges. It was, at least for some of the trolls, an attempt at intimidation, pure and simple. It was also laughable, as proven once again this week by a real life defamation suit in which a jury determined that even honest to God false statements didn’t rise to the very high standard needed to prove defamation under U.S. law.
Metropolitan King County Councilmember Jane Hague’s 2007 re-election campaign made a false statement about a supporter of her opponent but didn’t defame him, a jury has determined.
A King County Superior Court jury decided Aug. 28 that Hague doesn’t owe damages to Bellevue electrician Paul Brecht because a flier mailed by her campaign didn’t meet the legal standard for defamation.
Although the flier erroneously said Brecht had “at least one assault conviction,” the jury determined Hague and her campaign consultants either didn’t know the statement was false or didn’t act with “reckless disregard” to whether it was true or false.
A judge ruled earlier that Brecht’s public support for County Council candidate Richard Pope made him a public figure in the case, requiring that he prove defamation under a higher standard than is required for other citizens.
“I would characterize it as an overwhelming victory for the defendants,” Hague attorney Scott Ellerby told the press, apparently celebrating his client’s right to use baseless lies to impugn the reputation of an opponent’s supporters. But, you know, that’s the way our defamation laws work. As Erica explains over at Publicola:
[A]lthough the jury did determine that Hague had defamed the supporter, Paul Brecht, it did not rule that she had made the false statements [in] actual malice or “reckless disregard” for the truth, and so did not require her to pay compensation. Brecht had to meet a higher-than-usual standard to prove defamation because he was determined to be a “public figure” for the purposes of the campaign—in part because, as a 2008 deposition makes clear, he frequently defended Pope in the comments on political web sites and was interviewed about the campaign on KING5 and KUOW.
Participating in comment threads makes one a public figure? That’s a high standard indeed. As it should be.
Although defamation is hard to prove the verdict may have had more to with the following:
1. His ex-wife gave 8 statements over a 23 month period (under penalty of perjury) detailing her allegations of his violence against her.
2. After he was arrested and jailed for assault he violated a no contact order his wife obtained to protect her from his alleged violence.
3. He struck a deal to dismiss the assault charge in exchange for pleading guilty to the domestic violence crime of violating a no contact order issued to protect a victim of domestic violence. He was sentenced to a year in jail (suspended) and a two year restraining order was issued against him.
4. She only recanted her previous allegations of violence during the trial in which her ex-husband was asking for $1 million in damages and admitted he struggled at times to pay her child support.
One can fairly ask did the Hague campaign even need to attack the guy, but one can also ask couldn’t Richard Pope find anyone better to be his only endorser? Oh wait, he had Goldy!
“…couldn’t Richard Pope find anyone better to be his only endorser?”
I don’t recall the facts of this election, but in general, one doesn’t always get to select their supporters – which can be pretty embarrasing for the candidate at times.
The only thing worse than a liar is a drunk liar.
who among us public figures hasn’t made an honest mistake while drinking, driving, and talking to our minions as we were crossing a floating bridge?
4
And who among us would not blame our spouse in that situation for our actions?
publicola has the unforgettable hague backstory, yo:
Hague falsely claimed to have a bachelor of science degree, received an $8,000 fine for violating state campaign finance laws, and was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 2007. During the latter incident, Hague reported mouthed off to the arresting officers, telling them, “This is fucking ridiculous. Don’t you have rapists to take off the street?”
Good for Hague!
Now that I’m a public figure, I can call Klown a goatfucker with impunity, even if he’s fucking his horse instead of his goats.
@1 Since when do Republicans have a problem with electing violent people to public office? See, e.g., Dickless Cheney …
@7 We can always count on you to endorse criminal behavior, as long as a Republican idiot is the criminal.
I doubt anyone will read this, since the original post is almost a day old (ancient, by blogging standards).
But this morning on NPR (National Public Radio), there was an interesting discussion of an article in G.Q. magazine this month. Or rather, an article which is in the magazine, but NOT REALLY in the magazine?
It seems G.Q. okayed an assignment by a reporter to go do a follow-up on the terrorist attacks in Russia by Chechen seperatists in 1999 and 2000 which provided the foundation for Putin’s crackdown on opposition press, the war in Chechneya, etc. In light of Putin’s re-emergence as the major power player in Russia even after term-limiting out as prime minister, the reporter wanted to examine how Putin accumulated so much power and enfluence.
What surprised him was that there are indications that the attacks resulting in the deaths of Russian civilians may not have been terrorist attacks at all, but may have been instigated by the Russian security service which Putin had controlled.
But you won’t find the article online. It won’t appear on international versions of G.Q. magazine. It isn’t even mentioned on the cover of G.Q. magazine. It is buried in the interior of the magazine. This is because Conde Naste, the publisher of G.Q., was concerned that it’s operations in Russia might be subject to retaliation by Russian authorities – specifically civil and criminal charges of defamation. They are concerned it’s Russian personnel could be imprisoned, it’s publishing operations shut down, and it’s assets of all types confiscated.
Why ‘GQ’ Doesn’t Want Russians To Read Its Story
So not that many people will ever read about the article, either in the U.S. or worldwide, all because of the chilling effect of Russia’s defemation laws.
@9 Not sure they do but so what?