Two incidents where newspaper publishers are threatening lawsuits to shut up dissent!
The owner of Santa Barbara County’s largest daily paper accuses a hair stylist of defamation and orders him to take down a sign bearing her name.
Matt Cota is live with the latest controversy surrounding the Santa Barbara News-Press.
Eric Zahm thought he was just exercising his first amendment right. But after being threatened with legal action by the owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press, he’s not so sure anymore.
The offending sign says “McCaw Obey the Law.” Wendy McCaw is the owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press. The people who display the sign are siding with her employees who voted to join a union — people like Eric Zahm.
“I just feel like we should support them,” says Zahm, owner of Highlights Hair Salon. “We canceled our subscription, signed on to the L.A. Times and I don’t think it is right what she is doing.”
Eric Zahm has removed the sign from his window.
Associated Press – December 19, 2006:
The company that publishes the Santa Barbara News-Press has sued a reporter, claiming that a story she wrote in the American Journalism Review defamed the newspaper in a “biased, false and misleading diatribe.”
Ampersand Publishing LLC’s lawsuit accuses Susan Paterno of libel and product disparagement and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Paterno, 48, declined to comment Monday but her attorney, Howard King, said the lawsuit was without merit and that he believes its intended effect was to frighten other reporters who want to write about the News-Press.
“It’s to let any reporter know that if you exercise your constitutional rights, it will cost you money, time and put them through turmoil,” he said.
Paterno delved into two incidents some former employees believe compromised journalistic ethics — a story was killed concerning the drunken-driving sentencing of editorial page editor Travis Armstrong, and staff were reprimanded for publishing the address where actor Rob Lowe wants to build a mansion.
.” If Zahm refuses to take the sign out of his window, McCaw’s attorney will take “appropriate action.”
This attorney would be promptly told that his suit is frivolous and should have his ass handed to him by the judge.
The second case? Libel isn’t covered by the first amendment.
I think we would all be better off if civil lawsuits were made illegal. How much bullshit is shoveled through our courts with frivolous, nonsense lawsuits. While some of these suits are justified (cases of willful negligence) most are just lawyers and shitheads (plaintiffs) looking to make a quick buck or get back at someone for whatever reason. Do away with them all.
“Libel isn’t covered by the first amendment.”
Mmm… then why do publishers always bring it up when they’re the ones being sued for libel?
Seriously, the first amendment does impact libel laws. That’s why it’s nearly impossible for celebrities and politicians in the US to bring such lawsuits against alleged libelers. In the US it is assumed that we have the right to talk and write about those in the public eye, whether they like it or not.
There is no species more thin-skinned than journalist, and some smaller papers seem to be especially intolerant of criticism.
#3, I believe the distinction is more in whether or nor you are simply gossiping, or if you are intending to defame the individual. Publishing an opinion about Brittney Spears’s parenting skills is pretty safe, but printing a headline that she is a child molester will probably end in you being successfully sued for libel.
#6 “I believe the distinction is more in whether or nor you are simply gossiping, or if you are intending to defame the individual.”
Intent is not an element in libel.
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
Man, this is just sad. That owner should have their ass kicked.
#3 SN
“Mmm… then why do publishers always bring it up when they’re the ones being sued for libel?”
because they don’t think they committed libel.
“That’s why it’s nearly impossible for celebrities and politicians in the US to bring such lawsuits against alleged libelers”
No. It is because most of the time the statements made are true or just. Libel is a matter of making statements to defame that are unjust. It is more difficult to prove libel than slander because what is “just” is sometimes open to interpretation where as slander is a matter of fact.
“In the US it is assumed that we have the right to talk and write about those in the public eye, whether they like it or not. ”
In the US we can talk about anyone we want but we can’t make false, unjust, or untrue statements about them That falls under libel and slander.
Libel is not protected under the first amendment. You do not have the right to libel someone.
Ok then, in any case, I think I am correct in saying that gossip is specifically considered to be non-libelous? Which would be why Nicole Ritchie doesn’t go around suing the tabloids for speculating about whatever eating disorder she might have, even if it is negative in effect.
#9. J, you’re a nice guy. I’m sure you have plenty of friends and your significant other truly loves you. But merely because you can write nonsense does not make it true.
“No. It is because most of the time the statements made are true or just.”
That has nothing to do with it. The elements for joe-blow bringing a libel complaint are different from a celebrity bringing a libel complaint because of the free speech considerations.
When a celebrity or a politician brings a libel case, they also have to prove actual malice which is: “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) The ruling was based on the premise of protecting the right to free speech and a free press.
“In the US we can talk about anyone we want but we can’t make false, unjust, or untrue statements about them “
Not true. I can say some untrue about W. Bush as long I was not not reckless in doing so. That’s not true in the UK, for example, where celebrities can sue willy nilly and obtain huge verdicts.
“Libel is not protected under the first amendment.”
Yes it is. As I’ve already stated, the Courts have carved out an exception to defamation/libel/slander to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press!
“I think I am correct in saying that gossip is specifically considered to be non-libelous?”
Under the law there is no gossip exception. Telling someone a falsehood when gossiping could be slander.
“Which would be why Nicole Ritchie doesn’t go around suing the tabloids for speculating about whatever eating disorder she might have, even if it is negative in effect.”
The reason she is not suing anyone in the US is because she has a very high burden to meet. See my post #9.
#10 Mike
Libel doesn’t need intent but I understand why you think that. Libel is very difficult to prove especially concerning the behavior of may of the “public” figures. They have to prove damages and that the statements were “unjust”. Proving something is unjust is extremely hard to do. In the case of Nicole Ritchie. Her physical appearance more than likely would give justification for someone to comment on what eating disorder she may suffer from even if she doesn’t have one. Also, Ms. Ritchie would have to prove that those statements have caused her damages. As you can see it is very difficult to prove. Then of course there is the matter if it is true. If it is the is no grounds for a case at all.
#12, 13
So, publishing something that later turns out to be untrue could be libel, even if the report was originally made in good faith? I would not have thought that but, ok, good to know.
So are these Duke lacrosse players, who it seems fairly clear right now are innocent of the rape charges, going to be able to sue all of the national media who have helped smear their reputations through the mud?
“So, publishing something that later turns out to be untrue could be libel, even if the report was originally made in good faith?”
Well yes and no. It depends on what was said and what was known at the time of the publication. Also, depends on if damages can be proven. In laymen terms it boils down to was the statement a fair one to make and if not did it cause the plaintiff damages.
The easy way out for most publications is to print a retraction. Most Public figures have learned to live with that and not get into a law suit that will just cause bad press and questions to be asked which could lead to them actually losing.
The Duke case. If you notice most of the time the news reports will say “alleged or allegedly” This is the protection word.
I guess Anonymous is REALLY Anonymous today.
As usual, there is more here than meets the eye. As a Santa Barbarian, I feel I should fill you in on the back-story…
Wendy McCaw is the ex-wife of Craig McCaw, the multi-millionare founder of what is now Cingular. She took her divorce money and bought a local newspaper, The Santa Barbara New Press, from the New York Times.
Recently the SBNP has been involved in a nasty dispute when a bunch of respected senior editors and writers quit over Wendy’s meddling in the news room on what does and doesn’t get reported. In particular, a story about Rob Lowe trying to build himself a mega-mansion that she was determined to suppress (she is a friend of Rob Lowe).
She then stuck her boyfriend in the paper as senior editor, even though he as no experience and he decided to kill stories about his own drunk driving arrest.
Things are so bad the the paper now, that the employees are attempting to unionize, which Wendy is against. This incident has to do with the rights of employees to enter into collective bargaining.
The lawyer to sent to nasty letter, Cappello, owns a law firm in town. He is the same guy who represented Country Love against the music industry when he threatened to bring down Hollywood. That went no where until Love fired him and settled with her label. He has a reputation with his “style” of law, and this type of threat doesn’t surprise me at all. Shooting off letters with “threats” that have no merit in law is par for the course. Capello and McCaw have a lot of money. This guy will go bankrupt defending himself and his rights.
It is very sad and pathetic. The New Press has really gone down the toilet since she took over.
This is another incident where laws are changed by fiat of a lone judge via cival court rulings.The gauge of a peoples freedom lays in the amount of fear they feel.. Free men are those who feel least a risk.
Our cival liberties are inalienable…. not given by goverment but endowed on all men by thier common creator. No judge has the right to say other wise. That said,, anyone can be taken to cival court for anything.. but one must have had malfesence, must have commited a negligent act, and or commited a tort. There has to have been notable fiscal damages.. If these are not proven no decision agaisnt the speaker can be made.. If one is not willing to back up ones statments with a stiff fight then he isnt defending his freedom but cowaring on his knees before threats. “Put your money where your mouth is” The American founders knew this. and put thier forturnes and lives literaly on the block, it was eigther death or liberty…..Freedom is never free.
So, if I wanted to create a fictional character that parodies the real News-Press owner, would I be subject to libel if I based the character on items of public reco? Because she is a public figure?