All contents ©2013 Kansas City Pitch LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Kansas City Pitch LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
All contents © 2012 SouthComm, Inc. 210 12th Ave S. Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of SouthComm, Inc.
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Website powered by Foundation
Re: “Louie Wright, union head, sues Tony Botello for defamation”
Sorry, akent, but you're wrong. Libel and slander laws have every place in a just and free society because they protect what is one of the most basic rights people have in that society: the right to have their reputation based on facts and true actions, not on the malice of someone with a grudge or a gossip trying to increase readership or page views with a "juicy" story.
I'm a freelance investigative journalist, and the poster who queried about the grounds for libel missed one factor: malice. Typically, to be libelous the claim has to be demonstrably false, cause harm, and arise from malice on the part of the author or the publisher. I didn't read the original piece by Tony, so I don't know if it was based on malice. But Wright will have to prove that some malice, if only due to neglect and the desire to grandstand without regard for the reputation of another person, was present.
Also, libel also has a variable standard based on the public profile of the person alleging the libel. In other words, the more famous you are, the higher the bar for libel. It would be nearly impossible for President Obama to win a libel suit because he's an incredibly public figure. Wright is well-known in KC and so his burden of proof may be higher as well.
Finally, akent, you're obviously a libertarian and I respect that. But the true libertarian view is not to eliminate all laws, but those laws that cause us to be less free. I would argue that freedom to slander or libel others, especially when exercised by those with a platform like a daily newspaper or TV show, robs people of the freedom to be judged as fit for a job or a relationship based only on their words and actions. You are not free to say whatever you like about me if what you say ruins my hard-won reputation, makes people suspect me as a child molester or thief, costs me a job or a promotion or impacts my relationship with my spouse or friends. I think even the most die-hard libertarian would have to agree that having a newspaper publisher or blogger targeting you and trying to ruin your reputation (which, at the end of the day, is all any of us has) is as oppressive as an out of control government agency. Peace.