For our fellow bloggers out there, a brief primer on libel and blogging.
The Libel Defense Resource Center has an FAQ page. Here’s an excerpt:
What is Libel?
Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to oral statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.
In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be “of and concerning” the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.
The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.
Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law and other topics at the UCLA Law School, notes:
If it is libelous to say “[X] beats his wife,” why wouldn’t it be libelous to say “[X] is a traitor”? I’m not asking out of any intent to litigate, but rather as a sudden curiosity, especially at a moment when [a certain person] is walking around saying things like: “The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.” Since treason is a far more serious crime, why is it far easier to accuse people of it?
A great question, and here’s the answer: Libel law punishes false and defamatory statements that are likely to be perceived as statements of fact. “X beats his wife” is usually likely to be perceived as a statement of fact (though in some contexts, for instance in a comedy routine, or something that’s clearly a hypothetical, it might not be). “X is a traitor” may be perceived as a statement of fact in some situations, e.g., “During World War II, X was a traitor” or even “During his stay in Baghdad, journalist X committed treason.” Both of these statements tend to suggest that the speaker knows some facts about X that the speaker is capturing using the term “treason.” The statement is defamatory, and if it’s false (and the other requirements of libel law are met), then it’s libelous.
But sometimes the word “traitor” doesn’t carry with it a factual allegation — rather, it expresses a value judgment. “The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason,” or “liberals are traitors,” even when applied to a particular person, doesn’t suggest that the person in fact supports treason, or has committed treason. Rather, it suggests that, given the facts that the speaker and the listeners both know about the person — the person is a liberal, the person has written this-and-such, and so on — the person is morally tantamount to a traitor, or would support treason if he were only consistent. “Is to be for treason” or “are traitors” in this context are statements of pure opinion, pure evaluative judgment. They aren’t factual allegations…
Statutes in each state regulate the practice of law. In California, those include:
California Business and Professions Code
6125. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.
6126. (a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment…
Apparently, in some states, representing oneself as “Legal Department” also constitutes representing oneself as entitled to practice law, and must be accompanied by the name of the person who is an active member of the State Bar.
Finally, John Hiler, co-founder of a Manhattan software consulting firm which specializes in building easy-to-update websites, offered a succinct code of ethics in April, 2002:
A Living, Breathing Code of Ethics for Bloggers Everwhere…
by John Hiler
1. Amateur Journalists are inherently biased. What’s crucial is not pure objectivity, but full disclosure. It is the responsibility of an Amateur Journalist to fully disclose his or her agenda and background somewhere on their site. If a particular aspect of their background is especially relevant to a particular subject, that bias should be highlighted in any article on that subject.
2. Caveats are critical online. Accuracy is still important, but sometimes it’s ok to print information that you haven’t confirmed with multiple sources. Just make sure that you label it as such. Never ever publish information that you know not to be true. And if there’s any doubt as to the accuracy of the information, caveat it clearly so that it’s clear.
3. Blogging doesn’t magically make you immune from Libel and Slander. If your article isn’t clearly marked as opinion, you should give the subject of your piece a chance to respond in print. This means dropping them an email or picking up the phone.
Disclaimer: We at XGW are neither legal experts nor offering any advice. We found these items interesting and thought our readers might also.
Boy, is this guy not the brightest fish in the sea. Let me see we have a letter that opens with would you like to get the video for free and then goes on to state that the video comes for a $20.00 donation. I don’t know about his state but in mine that would probably be considered a scam. It is one thing to ask for a donation. It is another to promise the video for free and then ask for a donation in order to receive it.
The video hasn’t been made yet since he is so short of funds that he needs donations to fix his equipment after a Trojan virus. Maybe it is just me but how much sense does it make to promise to give away something that you don’t have now and are not really in much of a position to create? After all the donations might not come in.
Not to mention the crazy story about a Trojan virus and it damaging ALL of his equipment. I can see it taking out the PC, but worse case scenario would be format the hard drive. Reinstall the operating system and software get up and running for far less than $2000 or purchase a new computer which one capable of doing what he needs has been going for less than $2000 bucks for quite sometime.
He claims to have been cured from HIV. Now there is the kicker. Not so much the fact of a cure but in his lack of documentation. No where on his site or in that letter does he state any evidence of his cure. Yet he wants us to buy his video in order to get said evidence. Not to mention the fact that if he were truly cured he would probably retain antibodies to HIV and as such he would show as HIV positive to the screening tests for the HIV since the screening tests for antibodies to HIV and not the virus itself. God would have to perform a double miracle get rid of the virus and the antibodies.
Then he wants to make a libel treat against a blog. Which would be difficult at best since a blog is clearly the opinion of the writer. I’d say give the letter to proper authorities in his state. They might not act on it now, but they could file it and they would be alert for his next shenanigan.
I had someone try to scam me and about 100 other people earlier this year. I didn’t loose any money, but I sure as heck contacted the state and latter he and his cronies got arrested. It was kinda funny. After I contacted the state, I received a letter from the con artists, which had the same tone as your “Legal Department”. Although it wasn’t as threatening it tried its best to cloak itself in scary legal terms. I think scam artists must somehow fool themselves in the process.
Mike, you said “potential” scam. Manning is trying to scare you with bluster and posturing.
If you’d said anything about anyone that was a lie, you’d have something to worry about.
I find it odd that a Christian organization would threaten to sue anyone. I can’t imagine the early Christians threatening such action. And, perhaps I am naive, but I can’t even imagine the Roman Catholic Church threatening to sue an unbeliever for writing, for instance, that the miracles at Lourdes are not true miracles.
I don’t see how threatening legal action furthers the cause of promoting Christianity.
By the way I believe that miracles can take place and have no idea if Rev. Mannings claims are false or true. I am not in a position to test them. But I do find the recourse to legal threats to be somehow un-Christian.
The fact that you would even be threatened with a lawsuit from one of these ex-gay organizations is actually a very good sign.
That means, regardless of what anyone on the other side says publicly, Ex-Gay Watch and its content is being taken very seriously.
Which also means that you must be doing your job right. So, congrats. 🙂