Press Focus
Winds of Change:
Russia, US, Turkey
Will 'Join Forces'
To Resolve Syrian Crisis
| Sputnik News | 17 August 2016 |
|---|---|
Russia, the United States and Turkey will join efforts in a bid to destroy terrorist groups fighting in Syria and resolve the years-long crisis, journalist Verda Özer wrote for the newspaper Hurriyet, adding that Moscow and Washington appear to have sorted some of the differences, particularly the fate of President Bashar al-Assad.
|
"Washington has long since changed its stance on Assad," she said.
Policymakers in the US "reached an agreement with Moscow on plans with regard to establishing a government of national unity that Assad will be a part of several months ago."
|
For its part, Russia agreed to refrain from targeting those groups that the US considers to be moderate and convince Assad to come to the negotiating table with the opposition.
Ankara was opposed to any agreements that allowed Assad to remain in power. Moreover, Turkey provided assistance to radical groups trying to remove him and establish Sharia law in the war-torn country.
Turkey's foreign policy took a U-turn when Binali Yildirim replaced Ahmet Davutoglu as the country's prime minister.
Yildirim announced that Ankara will focus on making friends and reducing the number of its enemies, leading to a thaw in Turkey's relations with Russia and Israel.
|
Source:
Winds of Change: Russia, US, Turkey Will 'Join Forces' to Resolve Syrian Crisis |
TURKEY AND RUSSIA ALLIANCE:
Worsening US Relations
Force Erdogan
To Putin's door
Express UK
Wed, Aug 10, 2016
TURKISH president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said today Turkey and Russia were determined to normalise ties in an alliance set to unsettle Western leaders.
Speaking at a news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Erdogan said their talks had been "comprehensive and beneficial".
He said that Mr Putin's phone call to him after last month's failed coup "meant a lot psychologically".
President Putin received his Turkish counterpart in a Tsarist-era palace outside his home city of St Petersburg.
It was Mr Erdogan's first foreign trip since last month's failed military coup, which left Turkey's relationship with the United States and Europe badly damaged.
The visit is being closely watched in the West, where some fear both men, powerful leaders ill-disposed to dissent, might use their rapprochement to exert pressure on Washington and the European Union and stir tensions within NATO, the military alliance of which Turkey is a member.
Mr Putin said Moscow would gradually phase out sanctions against Ankara, imposed after the Turks shot down a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border nine months ago, and that bringing ties to their pre-crisis level was the priority.
During a joint news conference after an initial round of talks, Mr Putin said: "Do we want a full-spectre restoration of relations? Yes and we will achieve that.
"Life changes quickly."
Co-operation would be increased on projects including a planned £15.4billion gas pipeline and a nuclear power plant to be built in Turkey by the Russians, Mr Erdogan said, as well as between their two defence sectors.
The Turkish president said: "God willing, with these steps the Moscow-Ankara axis will again be a line of trust and friendship."
The leaders were to discuss the war in Syria, over which they remain deeply divided, in a subsequent closed-door session.
Progress there is likely to be more halting, with Moscow backing President Bashar al-Assad and Ankara wanting him out of power.
Turkey has been incensed by what it sees as Western concern over its post-coup crackdown but indifference to the bloody putsch itself, in which rogue soldiers bombed parliament and seized bridges with tanks and helicopters.
Some 294 people were killed, many of them civilians
Turkish officials, by contrast, warned on Tuesday of rising anti-American sentiment and of risks to a crucial migrant deal with Europe, in a sign of deteriorating relations.
Mr Erdogan blames Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric who has lived in self-imposed exile in the US state of Pennsylvania since 1999, and his followers for the failed coup.
Turkey has launched a series of mass purges of suspected Mr Gulen's supporters in its armed forces, other state institutions, universities, schools and the media, prompting Western worries for the stability of the NATO ally.
Denmark's ruling party said on Tuesday the EU should end accession negotiations with Turkey completely over Mr Erdogan's "undemocratic initiatives", the latest European country to condemn developments in Turkey.
Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said hostility towards the United States was rising among Turks and could be calmed only by the extradition of Mr Gulen, who denies any involvement in the coup and has condemned it.
He said: "There is a serious anti-American feeling in Turkey, and this is turning into hatred.
"It is in the hands of the United States to stop this anti-American feeling leading to hatred."
TURKEY AND RUSSIA ALLIANCE
Erdogan TO Putin's Door
Source:
Please Click This Link:
TURKEY AND RUSSIA ALLIANCE
Turkey and Russia were determined to normalise ties in an alliance.
| TURKEY AND RUSSIA ALLIANCE | Erdogan TO Putin's Door |
|---|---|
| Source:
Please Click This Link: TURKEY AND RUSSIA ALLIANCE |
Turkey and Russia were determined to normalise ties in an alliance. |
Russia shows its hand on Karabakh
Alexandros Petersen
8. Nov 2013
If Moscow is hoping that the Caucasus will stay stable ahead of the February Winter Olympics in Sochi, its commanders on the ground do not seem to have gotten the memo.
In an interview with the Russian Defense Ministry’s newspaper late last month, Col. Andrey Ruzinsky, commander of the 102nd Military Base at Gyumri in Armenia affirmed Russia’s preparedness and intention to “join the armed conflict” against Azerbaijan if it “decides to restore jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh by force."
Ruzinsky added that his officers had recently toured “areas of combat engagement” and plan to increase joint military exercises with Armenian forces in the coming year.
It is of course an open secret to all in the region as well as to Eurasianists in the EU that the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is a Russian proxy conflict, maintained in simmering stasis by Russian arms sales to both sides so that Moscow can sustain leverage over Armenia, Azerbaijan and by its geographic proximity Georgia.
It is still however striking to see a pivotal Russian military figure in the conflict underlining his country's intent to use massive force to maintain this destructive status quo or even tip the balance should Armenia and Azerbaijan come to major blows again.
The statement is highly illustrative of regional dynamics in that it lays bare Armenia's utter dependence on Russia for its security and the de facto abrogation of Armenian sovereignty - made final by President Serzh Sargsyan's recent obsequious pleas to join Moscow's Neo-Soviet Customs Union instead of moving forward with an EU Association Agreement.
It also underscores the gradual tipping of the balance of power between Baku and Yerevan towards Azerbaijan, given its ballooning military budget made possible by its oil and gas bonanza.
Apart from the close relationship between decision makers in Russia and Armenia, it is Azerbaijan that Moscow feels it has to contain, because of its energy wealth, but also because of the Azerbaijani leadership's adamant Western orientation for the past decade and a half.
In the run up to the Vilnius Summit, Russian decision makers seek to send a message that choosing the EU over Russia - a false choice incidentally - is a risky move. Col. Ruzinsky’s remarks smack of similar Russian threats to Georgia before the 2008 war.
In fact, Russia is much better prepared to ignite the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict than it was to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The 102nd Military Base maintains 5000 troops at Gyumri, armed with tanks, artillery, helicopters, MiG-29 aircraft and Iskender-M tactical ballistic missiles.
Unlike with Georgia's separatist territories where Russian leaders had to concoct the bizarre pretext that their armed forces were defending two minuscule independent statelets, over Nagorno-Karabakh, Moscow can just invoke its mutual defense pact with Armenia and its CSTO obligations.
In the eyes of the international community, Russian forces supposedly defending Armenia - even though a conflict would probably be centered on the internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory of Karabakh - would be seen as much more legitimate than an intervention in Georgia.
Russia's revealing its bias on the Karabakh conflict also draws into serious question its role as a co-chair of the so-called Minsk Group, the OSCE conflict negotiation mechanism also chaired by France and the United States.
Again, anyone that has watched the conflict closely for the past two decades knows well that Russia is not just a mediator but also a party to the conflict. But, until now, all participants have at least acted on the pretense that Russia is somehow objective. Col. Ruzinsky's unvarnished statement will make it difficult for French and American diplomats to continue a strategy towards conflict settlement that relies on Russia.
Russia's active role as a party to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not news.
However, Moscow's shot over the bow to Azerbaijan and the region is an ominous reminder of the catastrophe that can befall the Caucasus if conflict settlement is not soon achieved
The first step is convening comprehensive negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But the lead in doing so will almost certainly have to come from France (and the EU) or the United States as honest brokers.
Russia cannot simultaneously preach peace and threaten war.
The writer is the author of The World Island: Eurasian Geopolitics and the Fate of the West and co-editor ofwww.chinaincentralasia.com
Please click
This Link For Source:
Russia shows its hand on Karabakh
Nagorno-Karabakh:
Russia's Proxy War
In the Caucasus
Russia's Proxy War
Alexander Petersen
30 December 2013
Conceptions of proxy wars have until now tended to be rooted in the Cold War era, during whichthe opposing blocs engaged in numerous rounds of geopolitical shadow boxing, from Vietnam to Angola.
These ‘classic’ proxy conflicts tended to involve the manipulation of smaller powers or paramilitary groups by great powers, with both trying to match one another’s influence and/or power projection.
Now, as Iran inflames the Middle East with its proxy Hezbollah in Syria, interest in proxy conflicts has reemerged. The conflicts that began in the 1990s, which resulted from the break-up of the Soviet empire, were generally given different descriptors: ethnic clashes, frozen conflicts, separatist or irredentist disputes.
Many of these, however, whether in the Balkans, the Caucasus, or Central Asia, can be better understood as proxy conflicts in which Russia uses various actors to pressure or defeat its regional foes, as well as to exert tenuous control of what its leaders have called Russia’s “privileged sphere of influence.”
Armenia’s defense arsenal is procured from Russia, and Moscow provides major discounts forthe dependent nation. These arms go both to Armenian regular forces and the militias active in the conflict zone.
Additionally, Armenia’s economy is almost entirely dependent on Russian investment, and all large enterprises in the country are controlled by Russian firms with ties to the Kremlin.
More than 80% of Armenia’s energy infrastructure is owned by Russian companies and the government owes Russia enormous debts, incurred from natural gas and arms sales.
Remittances from abroad are crucial to Armenia’s economic welfare, and a major portion of these comes from Armenians working in Russia.
Given Moscow’s proclivity to deport foreign nationals for geopolitical reasons (as occurred with Georgians during the 2008 war), the fate of Armenian workers in Russia is a major source of leverage.
Interestingly, Russia also sells arms to Azerbaijan and maintains cordial relations with Baku.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Arms Transfer database, Russia sold Azerbaijan $1 billion dollars’ worth of weapons from 2007 to 2012, with another major sale this year.
This is a telltale sign of the interesting balance that Moscow seeks to maintain in this conflict.
By simmering along in a violent, but tolerable (for Russia) state, creating a gaping chasm of instability in the middle of the South Caucasus, Russia achieves a number of strategic aims without direct intervention:
it pressures Western-oriented and energy-rich Azerbaijan, ensuring that despite its growing independence of policy, Russia holds a hammer above its head;
and it provides an important ace up Russia’s sleeve to menace European energy and transport projects, mostly oil and gas pipelines that snake from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the EU.
On the ground, this is underpinned by Russia’s major military base at Gyumri.
The 102nd Military Base, leftover from Soviet times, keeps 5,000 troops armed with tanks, artillery, helicopters, MiG-29 aircraft and Iskender-M tactical ballistic missiles ready to support Armenian forces and to serve as a deterrent against any Azerbaijani plan to retake the territory.
Armenian forces receive training at the Russian base and the militaries of the two countries conduct regular exercises together.
Russian officers inspect Armenian positions and provide tactical advice.
In October 2013, Col. Andrey Ruzinsky, commander of the Gyumri base, stated in an interview with an official Russian media outlet that Russian forces are prepared to intervene should the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict heat up again.
In a show of how important the base is to Russia, when Vladimir Putin visited Armenia recently, he spent more time at Gyumri than in Yerevan, Armenia’s capital. He also declared that Russia will increase its influence in the South Caucasus this year.
Russia also holds the key to conflict settlement.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe maintains a conflict negotiation mechanism, the Minsk Group, which is meant to facilitate discussions between the belligerent sides and oversee the implementation of a peace agreement.
The international co-chairs of this group, however, are the United States, France, and Russia, meaning that a party to the conflict and the major geopolitical impetus behind it is also officially recognized as a mediator.
It is perhaps not surprising that the Minsk Group has achieved little in almost two decades.
For Russia, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a low-cost, low-effort proxy war yielding geopolitical returns.
The conflict helps Russia to indirectly pressure Azerbaijan, the EU, NATO, and the United States, as well as to maintain a hand in the economies and major infrastructure projects of the region.
Russia’s security commitments to Armenia and capabilities in the region mean that Moscow may have to make good on its commitments at some point in the future, but for the moment, as the region suffers continuing instability, Russia gains continued clout amongst its neighbors.
Most of all, Moscow holds the power to put a cork in the strategic bottleneck of the Caucasus between Russia and Iran, blocking Western access to Central Asia and Afghanistan.
What, if anything, can the United States and its allies do to ameliorate this dilemma?
As Minsk Group co-chairs, the U.S. and France (representing the EU) can cease to play the polite diplomatic game that requires treating Russia as if it were an impartial mediator.
A public acknowledgment of Russia’s active role as a party to the conflict would not only clarify various interests involved, but also expose Moscow on the international stage in such a way as to potentially elicit a shift in its posture.
Were U.S. and European diplomats to publicly call out Russia on Nagorno-Karabakh, it may begin to tip the Kremlin’s cost-benefit calculus.
This should go hand-in-hand with a renewed effort towards holding comprehensive negotiations. The Obama administration is in fact very well suited to tackle the thorny Karabakh conflict.
The current U.S. co-chair of the Minsk Group, Ambassador James Warlick, is one of the most senior diplomats to hold the position, and he brings extensive experience negotiating with Afghan leaders on security agreements.
Secretary of State John Kerry is intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the conflict, having as a Massachusetts senator represented one of the most powerful Armenian diaspora communities. In his current role – as ought to be expected – he has shown that he can leave his legislative biases behind.
But, importantly, he still holds the trust of Armenians: a crucial element to achieving a settlement.
In the context of matters with Iran, Syria, the East China Sea, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would seem that Nagorno-Karabakh might not warrant high-level U.S. and/or European attention.
However, as Western forces withdraw from Afghanistan, cease moving supplies through the NDN and generally begin a strategic retreat from the former Soviet space, Washington and Brussels will quickly be left without a strategy for engaging Eurasia.
Vladimir Putin’s recent pugnacity in Ukraine and plans for a Eurasian Union are engendered, at least in part, by the perception of Western abandonment of the region.
By grasping the nettle of the Karabakh conflict, Western powers can begin to reformulate their Eurasia policy, from one in which the region is simply a thoroughfare to Afghanistan, to one of understanding the region as warranting strategic attention for its own sake.
About the Author: Dr. Alexandros Petersen is the author of The World Island: Eurasian Geopolitics and the Fate of the West and co-edits www.chinaincentralasia.com
Please Click
This Link
For Source:
Nagorno-Karabakh:
Russia's Proxy War in the Caucasus
In memoriam:
Dr. Alexandros Petersen
He Was Killed
On Friday 17th January 2014
Statement on the Death of Alexandros Petersen:The Wilson Center is shocked and saddened to learn of the death of Alexandros Petersen, who died in an attack on a restaurant in Kabul last week.
"Alex was a much-liked and highly respected colleague. We mourn his passing and send our condolences to his family and friends," said Christian Ostermann, head of the Center's Global Europe Program, who had worked closely with Petersen.
Alex had been part of the Wilson Center community for several years.
He served as an advisor on energy security issues to the Wilson Center's Global Europe Program since 2010 and had also been a Wilson Public Policy Scholar and a visiting scholar with the Center’s Southeast Europe Project.
Alex was an expert on energy politics, Central Asia and the Caucasus and ran the hugely popular blog chinaincentralasia.com.
"He was an exceptionally talented, energetic and courageous young man, passionate about his work, someone who literally ‘walked the walk’ – constantly traveling to the regions that were of core concern to him.
He was doing excellent work and I will miss his wise counsel, enthusiasm and partnership," said Ostermann.
The Center will not forget his commitment to scholarship and public policy, a commitment that often took him to distant and sometimes dangerous places in pursuit of knowledge. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/statement-the-death-alexandros-petersen#sthash.eBqgYLrs.dpuf
Link:
The Death of Alexandros Petersen
It is with great sadness that we note the death of our former student, Alexandros Petersen.
Alex was killed in a Taliban attack on cafe in Kabul on Friday 17th January; in all, twenty-one staff and diners were tragically murdered.
We seek to produce the graduates that leave us eager and able to change the world through future scholarship, policy and/or practice.
Alex was just such a person. We remember him as an outstanding student with an obvious and infectious enthusiasm for his subject.
Source:
LINK:
Alexandros Petersenwas killed in a Taliban attack on cafe in Kabul on Friday 17th January
High Damages
For Libel
Against
The Fifth Estate
&
The CBC
The Supreme Court ruled against the CBC in February 2015.Fifth Estate film found at fault for unfounded facts and false impressions.[2]
CBC EXPOSED
Wednesday, August 05, 2015
If you thought that headline was a mouthful, try swallowing a damages award of $950,000 and a costs award over $800,000 as the CBC had to in the libel lawsuit brought by Dr. Frans Leenan.[1]
After winning his case in Ontario’s Superior Court, Dr. Leenen said, ‘Four years ago we proposed to settle this law suit for $10,000 and an on-air apology. It was refused…The Fifth Estate persisted and took me through 10 weeks of trial.’[1]
The trial judge awarded very high damages for libel against The Fifth Estate and the CBC as well as individual reporters and producers. The CBC appealed. Ontario’s Court of Appeal disagreed with the CBC, and ruled that Dr. Leenen had been libelled. Finally, the CBC tried to take the case to Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada.[1]
The Supreme Court ruled against the CBC in February, with yet another costs award. Dr. Leenen’s long legal journey is over. The case should be a lesson for documentary producers and journalists everywhere. [1]
Simon Chester is a partner at the Toronto law firm of McMillan Binch and a member of the firm’s KNOWlaw Group. This article was prepared with the assistance of Marlo Kravetsky.[2]
If you thought that headline was a mouthful, try swallowing a damages award of $950,000 and a costs award over $800,000 as the CBC had to in the libel lawsuit brought by Dr. Frans Leenan.[2]
After winning his case in Ontario’s Superior Court, Dr. Leenen said, ‘Four years ago we proposed to settle this law suit for $10,000 and an on-air apology. It was refused…The Fifth Estate persisted and took me through 10 weeks of trial.’[2]
The trial judge awarded very high damages for libel against The Fifth Estate and the CBC as well as individual reporters and producers. The CBC appealed. Ontario’s Court of Appeal disagreed with the CBC, and ruled that Dr. Leenen had been libelled. Finally, the CBC tried to take the case to Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada.[2]
The Supreme Court ruled against the CBC in February, with yet another costs award. Dr. Leenen’s long legal journey is over. The case should be a lesson for documentary producers and journalists everywhere.[2]
What Is Wrong
The story began benignly. One day Dr. Leenen was called by The Fifth Estate, wanting an interview on his scientific research into drugs known as CCBs (Calcium Channel Blockers). Dr. Leenen was an obvious choice to profile. He had published widely, chaired an advisory committee on the drug, and was director of the Hypertension Unit at the world-renowned Ottawa Heart Institute.[2]
He gave a fairly lengthy interview, but he was horrified when editing spun his interview, showing him as a staunch defender of the drug and as a bumbling fool. What Dr. Leenen did not know was the producer’s angle of building a ‘good guys/bad guys’ story. Dr. Leenen had been cast as enemy number one.[2]
Dr. Leenen said that, ‘as a scientist and a physician, having your personal and professional integrity called into question is tantamount to a professional death sentence.’ He sued the CBC. The court characterized the impact of the show on Dr. Leenen as devastating. According to the court, he had been accused of views he did not hold, and ‘convicted and sentenced’ by the CBC.[2]
Documentary makers know they must walk a fine line between truth and telling a story in a captivating way. Libel suits are nothing new for the news business.[2]
What sets this case apart is the fact that the show said nothing about Dr. Leenen that was untrue as such. The falsity came on the cutting floor. Using short sound bites, music, a reporter’s facial expressions, and leaving out key facts, the doctor’s scientific views on the medication were twisted. Viewers would have seen him as a villain. At best, he was operating in a conflict of interest; at worst, he may have been negligent.[2]
The words were fine; the story was not. Producers have always known that playing with facts could land them in hot water. What this case warns is that editing, music, camera angles and lighting – casting doubt on truth – can also land you with a million-dollar lawsuit.[2]
More Problems
The Fifth Estate story was about the safety of CCBs as heart medications. It argued that an approved drug was dangerous and that some doctors were covering up the facts for personal gain.[2]
The independent producer had long been a harsh critic of Health Canada and the drug industry. The court found that he had a case to make and an axe to grind. The program presented Dr. Leenen as a defender of all CCB drugs, which he was not. [2]
The show raised the subject of kickback schemes after the doctor wrote a mild advisory letter to doctors on CCB and then took a trip down the Nile, courtesy of drug company, Pfizer.[2]
It was a devastating innuendo. It hinted that he supported the prescribing of killer drugs, that he was in a conflict of interest, was getting paid off by a drug company and that he was negligent or dishonest in serving as chair of a medical advisory committee. None of which were true in fact.[2]
What Is Defamation
A defamatory statement is a false statement that has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers because, it causes that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, dislike or disesteem by individuals in the community.[2]
A broadcast statement may be defamatory either through its natural and ordinary meaning, or through innuendo. A false innuendo operates in the same manner as an un-truth except that it is evaluated by looking at the documentary as a whole, to determine if factual misrepresentations are being made.[2]
So Innuendo
Is
The Key
To
The Fifth Estate’s Liability
It used sound bites of the Dr. Leenen interview out of context. The editing suggested he supported prescribing CCBs in the face of research about their dangers. By cutting statements clarifying his views on the medication, the producers made it seem that Dr. Leenen did not care that using the drug might harm his patients. The Nile trip was not a freebie from a grateful drug company. He was to deliver three speeches at an Egyptian medical conference, planned long before the drug issues came up.[2]
Ten Steps
To Guard
Against Liability
Documentary makers know they have three defences in a libel suit. The story is:
* True
* Fair comment on a matter of public interest, or
* Protected by qualified privilege if the statement is made in the public interest in good faith and without malice.
Facts are always sacred. But the courts in the Leenan case suggest that broadcasters should take 10 extra steps to minimize the risk of liability:
1. How serious is the allegation? The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed if the allegation is not true. If the charge is serious – be sure of the facts and certain you can back them up.
2. Is it in the public interest? The nature of the information and the extent to which the issue is of public importance is critical. The more the information is in the public interest, the more protected from liability the producer will be.
3. How strong are your sources? Some informants have no direct knowledge, some have their own axes to grind and some are being paid for these stories. Figure out what is driving each informant. Is he or she is reliable? Will they back you up if it comes to the crunch?
4. Are you sure you are right? Has the information been fact-checked? Are the sources trustworthy and reliable?
5. How sensitive is the victim? Remember that some figures have much thicker skins than others. Politicians expect to be criticized – but remember Brian Mulroney. Professionals (like Dr. Leenen) care a great deal about their reputation.
6. Has there been an official investigation? The allegation may have already been the subject of a thorough investigation. To omit that from the broadcast may leave a false impression with viewers.
7. How hot a story is it? How important is it to communicate the information as quickly as possible?
8. Is there another side? Comments made that are unduly detrimental to one side should be addressed with that side and included in the broadcast.
9. Is the tone too edgy? Did the newspaper or broadcast call for an investigation or raise questions, or did it adopt allegations as statements of fact?
10. Do you have an axe to grind? If, in the course of advancing an argument to the public, the journalists and producers deliberately omit information contrary to that thesis, the producers and journalists cannot argue the truth of the facts, since the broadcast will have conveyed an untruthful idea. This is called ‘malice,’ and can compound the monetary damages that a court can award.[2]
The Role of the Producer
The court stresses the importance of the producer’s role in the creation and ultimate broadcast of a documentary. The producer is responsible to the public and to the individuals featured in the documentary and must ensure the truth of the factual content.[2]
The Court Suggests
That
Documentary Producers:
* Remember their power and influence moulding public opinion.
* Separate the functions of reporter and editor. Ensure the editor confirms accuracy before publication.
* Make sure the editor looks over the reporter’s shoulder.
* Take great care.
The judges criticized the executive producer’s failure by those standards. No one had properly monitored the creator of the piece. Had someone looked into his past, his slant would have been obvious. With care, the documentary could have avoided the problems – and still carried a message.[2]
Are Documentaries Dead?
Far from it. It means being careful about facts. As a producer, it’s your job to ensure that the factual elements of the documentary are in fact true. If you need to get errors and omissions insurance for your production, verifying the facts is an inescapable part of getting coverage. You must also ensure that all the elements that make up the piece do in fact ring true. There is lots of room for commentary, criticism, and opinion, as long as it rests on solid factual background.[2]
The Leenen case was an expensive mistake for the CBC and for others involved in the production. We can all learn from it.[2]
(This article contains general comments only. It is not intended to be exhaustive and should not be considered as advice in any particular situation.)[2]
Arthur Kent
Faces Off
Against Postmedia
As
Libel
Nov 16, 2015
Arthur Kent faces off against Postmedia as libel trial begins.Veteran war correspondent Arthur Kent and Canada's largest newspaper chain are facing off in a Calgary courtroom as a prolonged libel lawsuit heads to trial.[3]
Donald Trump
Wants
To Weaken
U.S. Libel Laws
Northwestel sues Whitehorse's Orange Technology for libel.[5]Northwestel drops libel suit against Whitehorse businessman.[6]
The Associated Press
Feb 27, 2016
Donald Trump is threatening to weaken constitutional protections for reporters as president, making it easier for him to sue them.[4]
RWW News: Trump:
Open Up Libel Laws
To Sue Journalists
The celebrity businessman turned Republican presidential front-runner told a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday that he wants to "open up" libel laws. The changes envisioned by Trump would mean that "when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," he said.[4]
Trump added that, should he be elected, news organizations that have criticized him will "have problems." He specifically mentioned The New York Times and The Washington Post.[4]
[News] WTF - Donald Trump wants
to open up libel laws
to sue journalists?
Trump last month threatened to sue the Post after the newspaper wrote an article about the bankruptcy of his Atlantic City casino. On Twitter, Trump has routinely criticized reporters who cover him and their news organizations, including The Associated Press.[4]
What Trump's 'libel law'
warning really means
First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's suggestions.[4]
"His statement shows why we need libel protections," said Gregg Leslie, legal defence director for the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Trump gets offended, he gets upset and he wants to sue to retaliate. That's not a good reason to sue someone."[4]
Judge Andrew Napolitano
- Trump Wants British Libel Laws
in USA
Open Up Libel Laws
To Sue Journalists
to open up libel laws
to sue journalists?
warning really means
- Trump Wants British Libel Laws
in USA
Constitution
Guarantees
Freedom of the Press
Libel law in the United States generally makes it difficult for public figures to sue reporters or other people who criticize them. To win such a case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that factually incorrect statements were made with malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.[4]
Trump said he would like to lower that standard. "We're going to have people sue you like you never got sued before," he said.[4]
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed the existing legal standard, Trump could not change libel laws as they affect public figures by executive order or even with an act of Congress, Leslie said.[4]
"I've never heard of politicians saying they would repeal case law established under the First Amendment," he said. "You'd really need a constitutional amendment to do that."[4]
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. [4]
Trump's comments on libel law are not the first time he has disagreed with widely held conceptions of constitutional law.[4]
Last year, he said he saw no obstacle to deporting children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States. Courts have regularly found that such children are natural born citizens entitled to the same rights as any other American. Trump has said he does not believe a constitutional amendment would be necessary to get his way.[4]
"You don't have to do a constitutional amendment. You need an act of Congress. I'm telling you — you need an act of Congress," he said in an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News last year.[4]
Ezra Levant, Sun News Network host, ordered to pay $80,000 in libel case.An Ontario judge who heard a defamation lawsuit against Sun News Network host Ezra Levant has ruled that he libelled a Saskatchewan lawyer in a series of blog posts.Justice Wendy Matheson has ordered Levant to pay $80,000 in damages to Khurrum Awan and remove "defamatory words" about the man from his website within 15 days.[7]
Freedom 101.2; Ep. 11:
New York Times v. Sullivan
Matheson found that Levant's "dominant motive" in the blog posts was "ill will."
She also found that he demonstrated a "reckless disregard for the truth."
Awan was completing his articling and looking for work as a lawyer when the statements were posted online by Levant.[7]
Levant's posts centred on Awan's testimony at a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal case
Some of his blog posts are titled "Awan the liar," "Awan the liar part two" and so forth.
Awan's lawyer had argued that Levant had caused tremendous damage to his client with the posts, which remain online years after they were originally published.[7]
He had said the blog posts were based upon what Levant observed over two days of Awan's testimony at the human rights tribunal and were comments on a matter of public interest.[7]
But Matheson found that at trial, Levant "repeatedly tried to minimize his mistakes and his lack of diligence.""The defendant makes a general assertion that none of the words complained of were defamatory due to the defendant's reputation," she wrote. "There is, however, ample evidence before me demonstrating express malice on the part of the defendant."[7]
50th Anniversary
of New York Times v. Sullivan
Levant also appeared to have little regard for the facts, Matheson found.[7]
"He did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of, either before or after their publication....and with one exception, when he learned that he got his facts wrong, he made no corrections," she wrote.[7]
The fact that Levant himself is a lawyer ought to have made him aware of the "serious ramifications" of his words on Awan's reputation, Matheson added.[7]
"Yet, at trial, he repeatedly tried to minimize his mistakes and his lack of diligence," she wrote.
Levant, meanwhile, wrote on his website that he is reviewing the ruling with his lawyer but plans to appeal "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."[7]
He called the ruling a "shocking case of libel chill" and asked supporters to help him foot the bill for his appeal, which he estimates will cost at least $30,000.[7]
New York Times V. Sullivan
New York Times v. Sullivan
of New York Times v. Sullivan
Former CBC Poet
Greg "Ritallin" Frankson
Daniel Otis
Wed., March 4, 2015
Former CBC poet Greg "Ritallin" Frankson alleges a couple defamed him, over sexual misconduct claims that saw him banned from spoken-word events across Canada.[8]
A prominent Toronto poet is suing two peers for more than $150,000 each, accusing them both of libel and defamation following unspecified allegations of sexual harassment and assault that saw him banned from spoken-word events across the country. [8]
Greg Frankson, who goes by the stage name Ritallin, was the house poet on CBC’s Here and Now radio program between 2012 and 2014. Frankson also appeared as a contestant on CBC’s Canada’s Smartest Person and is the founder of Cytopoetics — a “creative services” business.Frankson regularly hosts spoken-word events in Toronto. [8]
In the face of sexual misconduct allegations, Frankson was kicked out of Ottawa’s Capital Poetry Collective (CPC), and banned from attending their events in Nov. 2014. A notice to this effect was posted on the collective’s website. Spoken Word Canada (SpoCan) followed suit with a similar ban, as did other poetry groups in cities such as Toronto, London, Saskatoon, Victoria and Vancouver.[8]
On Jan. 23, separate statements of claim were issued by Frankson’s lawyers to Rusty Priske and Ruthanne Edward. Priske and Edward, who are married, are both poets and prominent members of CPC and SpoCan. [8]
According to the statements of claim, Edward initiated these bans by bringing a grievance before the CPC on behalf of 21 anonymous women. Edward, the statement of claim says, accused Frankson of “sexually aggressive behaviour including sexual comments, sexual propositions and unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature” targeting “those who are new to a scene, often those to whom he acts as a mentor.” [8]
That grievance, the statement of claim says, “caused false allegations of sexual assault to be rebroadcast or republished by various media outlets, poetry associations and on social media.” [8]
Priske and Edward declined to comment for this story. The couple’s lawyer, Russell MacCrimmon, sent the following statement to the Star on Thursday:[8]
“I confirm that we have been retained and that our clients intend to defend the matter. We have no further comment at this time.”[8]
The quantum of such awards will depend upon the losses which flow from the actions. $15,000 in damages were awarded in Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care.(2002 CanLII 45005 (ON CA).[9]
Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, 2002 CanLII 45005 (ON CA)[10][11][12][13]
If you're ever involved in a lawsuit, make sure you come to court with clean hands. Courts tend to have no sympathy for litigants who admit fraud.
If an ownership interest in a house is going to be held in trust by a third party, make sure the arrangement is fully documented. [14]
Since the obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal is not a free standing duty grounded in the employment contract or tort law, the remedy available to employees in case of the breach of such obligation, namely, an addition to the length of the notice period, is consequently not free-standing either. [15]
For example, if the dismissed employee finds alternative employment at comparable wages immediately or very shortly after his dismissal then the extension of the notice for the bad faith manner of his dismissal is of no or very little economic value or benefit to him, unlike an award for an independently actionable tort such as defamation.[16]
A Brief Survey of Some Related Torts in Wrongful Dismissal Actions (John F. Johnson) [17]
A claim of intentional infliction of nervous shock has succeeded in several cases. In Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care7, an employee was subject to a barrage of phone calls while off sick and was accused of harming the clients she served as a hairdresser in a geriatric facility. The actions by her supervisor and other employees of the facility were deliberate and resulted in emotional upset, increased blood pressure, weight gain and an increase in the employee’s diabetes symptoms. The court considered this a separate head of damages in her wrongful dismissal action and awarded her $15,000 plus $5,000 in punitive
damages.[2000] O.J. No. 683, (Ont. SCJ) [18]
Respect is an important feature of a healthy, productive work environment. In a well-functioning work environment, everyone has a specific job to do and everyone feels important to the success of the organization. Employees feel valued by their employers; all parties are treated with a fairness and dignity that diffuses potential conflict and stress. Productivity is high, conflict is low and business interests thrive. Even in difficult times such as terminations or discipline, a respectful approach by an employer may assist employees to move forward, accept workplace situational change and may avoid expensive litigation or workflow disruption.[19]
The court stated that the Claim "set out the prerequisites for pleading the tort of defamation and probably also for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional suffering". It later stated "(i)t seems to me that the potential causes of action arising from the facts proven at trial are defamation, intentional infliction of emotional harm, interference with economic interests, threatening bodily harm and invasion of privacy."[20]
Notably, Canadian employers may be vicariously liable for the torts committed by their employees that are carried out in the course of employment.45 Further, if the alleged harasser also happens to be a senior manager, a court may consider him or her to be part of the directing mind of the company.46 On this basis, his or her acts may be deemed to be the acts of the employer itself.
Although a number of different torts could, in theory, address harassment at work, many are designed for fact-specific wrongdoing, such as battery/assault, defamation/libel, invasion of privacy, and negligent investigation.[21]
50 Years Later:
The New York Times v. Sullivan
Lord McAlpine and Twitter Libel: Does failing to sue when a libel is first published raise a defence of waiver, estoppel or acquiescence?The recent media scandal involving British peer, Lord McAlpine (pictured above) who threatened to sue the BBC, ITV and thousands of Twitter users over false accusations of pedophilia is discussed over at Inforrm’s Blog:[22]
As we pointed out last week, Lord McAlpine’s reputation was severely damaged by the event surrounding the ill-conceivedNewsnight broadcast of 2 November 2012.That damage was caused in part by the publication on Twitter of material which linked him to the unidentified individual mentioned in the broadcast. Lord McAlpine was plainly entitled to have his reputation restored. This was, in practice, substantially achieved by the apology given by the BBC on 10 November 2012.[22]
American and Canadian readers should note that the UK consultation on the draft Defamation Bill underway applies only to England and Wales; Scotland and Ireland have distinct defamation laws. England does not have a ‘single publication’ rule, so that anyone who republishes or reproduces a libel ( a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation) may also be held liable for the damage caused to the person’s reputation. In Canada, hyperlinking to a defamatory article or blog post does not constitute republication, unless the alleged libel is endorsed or repeated. [See my previous post discussing the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Crookes v. Newton here].[22]
Libel via YouTube.[23]
The New York Times v. Sullivan
The Annenberg
Libel Reform Proposal:
The Case for Enactment
Rodney A. Smolla & Michael J. Gaertner
1989
For 200 years, the common law of libel operated under a complex and bizarre set of rules tilted heavily in favor of plaintiffs and against freedom of speech.[24]
In 1964, the United States Supreme
Court superimposed upon the common law, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan(376 U.S. 254 , 1964) first amendment protections designed to offset the old one-sided rules and insure that the libel system provided sufficient breathing space for the tradition of "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open"'(376 U.S. 270, 1964). debate that is the heart and soul of freedom in American life.[25]
In October of 1988, at a press conference in the Willard Hotel Office Building in Washington, D.C., the Libel Reform Project of the Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern University publicly released a "Proposal for the Reform of.Libel Law."[26]
Written in the form of a comprehensive model statute, with accompanying commentary, the Annenberg report recommended adoption of an entirely new approach to the law of defamation.[25]
A society starting from scratch to design the "perfect" legal mechanism for handling libel disputes would never arrive at the current system. [25]
It is costly, cumbersome, and fails to vindicate either
free speech values or the protection of reputation.(See R. SMOLLA, supra note 33, at 238-39).(See generally LIBEL LAW & THE PRESS, supra note 33, at 170-83; L. FORER, supra note 35, at 112-39; R. SMOLLA, supra note 33.)[25]
The common law rule followed in most jurisdictions prior to 1977 rendered a person
liable for "republication" of libelous statements originated by others. See R. SMOLLA, supra
note 5, § 4.13. [25]
The common law employed the fiction that the republisher "adopts" the defamatory statement as his or her own. Id. This rule tends to hamstring the press when the original speaker's very making of the defamatory statement is newsworthy. Id. § 4.14. [25]
In Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nom. Edwards v. New York Times Co., 434 U.S. 1002 (1977), the Second Circuit adopted what has come to be known as the "neutral reportage" privilege. [25]
Under this privilege, the press may republish defamatory statements of another as long as the very making of the statements is newsworthy, the statements are made by a responsible public figure, official, or organization, the statements are made about a public figure, official, or organization, and the press cbverage of the statements is "neutral." Id. at 120; see, e.g., Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co., 639 F.2d 54, 67-69 (2d Cir. 1980); Dixson v. Newsweek, Inc., 562 F.2d 626, 630-31 (10th Cir. 1977); Barry v. Time, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 1110, 1126-27 (N.D. Cal. 1984); see also R. SMOLLA, supra note 5, § 4.14. [25]
The neutral reportage concept has gained increasing judicial acceptance, but is still far from being a majority rule among the states. See id. § 4.14[4]. The Annenberg proposal adopts a broader neutral reportage privilege than existing case law by abandoning the requirement that the person quoted be "responsible."[25]
The rationale for this extension is that individuals who might well be deemed "irresponsible" by most persons may nevertheless make public statements that are newsworthy and that deserve to be reported. [25]
The quid pro quo under the Annenberg proposal is that the source of
the quote must be identified. This requirement prevents the press from hiding behind
"anonymous sources."[25]
The Annenberg report sets forth a comprehensive model Libel Reform Act, designed to encourage the dissemination of truth in the marketplace by emphasizing remedies other than money damages
to facilitate the prompt and efficient resolution of defamation disputes. [25]
The driving philosophy behind the proposed Libel Reform Act is the conviction that the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and the law of defamation should function in harmony to serve the compelling public interest in the discovery of truth. [25]
The Act sets forth a three-stage process for the resolution of
disputes over allegedly defamatory statements, providing incentives for the parties to evaluate their positions early in the controversy and seek a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute.[25]
Additionally, the Court's libel law decisions may have made defamation suits complex beyond the grasp of the typical jury.[28]Two-thirds of jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs are revised on. appeal(Rodney A. Smolla, Suing the Press 77 (Oxford University Press, 1986).). [27]
The general principles of the common law of libel are relatively simple.'[29] Defendants were strictly liable for publication of false and defamatory material, unless acting under privilege. [30]
That is, the plaintiff's reputation was the focus of the law.[27]
Do plaintiffs get a fair shake under the Annenberg proposal? [25]
Are the retraction and reply mechanisms fair to plaintiffs, or do they create traps for the unwary? Does the provision eliminating any suit for money damages in the event that the defendant honors the
request for a retraction or opportunity for reply in timely fashion unfairly strip the plaintiff of an entitlement to compensation for reputational injury suffered in the interim between the publication
of the libel and the issuance of the retraction? Similarly, is it fundamentally unfair to allow the defendant, rather than only the plaintiff, to opt for the declaratory judgment remedy, thereby foreclosing any monetary relief, other than possible recovery of attorneys' fees, against the plaintiff's will?[25]
I was disappointed to see a review of the book Compelling People used by Iain Morris (New Review) to repeat the libel on Machiavelli that he favoured authoritarianism or even tyranny, though it was not clear whether that was the reviewer's view or that of the authors of the book.[31]
Machiavelli was in favour of a democratic, republican, united Italy, well before those ideas were taken up more generally.[31]
The fact that he analysed different methods of persuading people to do things did not mean he advocated harsh methods of persuasion, let alone compulsion, though he did deal with the problems of persuading people in positions of power to do what was for the general good, when they saw greater advantage in doing what was primarily for their own good.[31]
IS LIBEL LAW
WORTH REFORMING?
DAVID A. ANDERSON
1991
To understand that the constitutional law of libel is a r ule requiring public officials and public figures to prove actual malice, or even that it is a system of fault-based rules that vary for different classes, is to have an illusion of understanding. [32]
The constitutional law of libel has evolved far beyond the well-known fault-requirements. The "actual malice" rule of "New York v. Sulivan" has subsumed into an intricate complex of substantive, procedural, and evidentiary rules, some of which have little with "actual malice" and much to do with judicial power to reject jury findings. [32]
The rule created by New York Times v. Sullivan,(376 U.S. 254 , 1964). still the cornerstone of constitutional defamation law today, is that the First Amendment "prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'-that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." (376 U.S. 279-80 , 1964) [32]
New York Times Vs Sullivan [Case Study]
Harper drops Cadman libel lawsuit against Liberals.[33]
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dropped a $3.5-million libel lawsuit against the Liberal party over statements published on the party's website suggesting the Tories offered a bribe to the late Independent MP Chuck Cadman.[33]
Lawyers for both parties issued a joint news release late Friday, saying they've settled all issues in the case. Neither side will make any further comment.[33]
Harper launched the lawsuit in March 2008 after the Liberal party posted website headlines alleging two senior Conservatives attempted to bribe Cadman to secure his co-operation on a crucial budget vote that threatened to topple the Liberal minority government in May 2005. The headlines claimed Harper also knew about the alleged bribe.[33]
Back in March, Harper called the allegations "absolutely false" and "despicable."[33]
In a book published earlier in 2008, B.C. author Tom Zytaruk quotes Cadman's widow, Dona, as saying her husband told her that Conservatives offered him a $1-million life insurance policy in return for his vote against the Liberals.[33]
In an interview for the book, Harper can be heard on tape saying: "I don't know the details, I know that, um, there were discussions, um, but this is not for publication?"[33]
Tape was edited, Harper testified
During cross-examination during libel proceedings in August, Harper said that the tape had been edited.[33]
Harper testified that he only authorized for Cadman to be approached with an offer of financial help for his election campaign if Cadman would vote against the Liberals, defeating the government, and then run for the Conservatives.[33]
Case Study: New York Times v. Sullivan
Harper also testified that he told Zytaruk he did not know about the offer of an insurance policy, and he said Zytaruk edited that response out of the recording.[33]
But a court-ordered analysis of the tape found that the first part of Zytaruk's interview with Harper, which contains the portions the prime minister has contested, had not been altered.[33]
The second part, beginning roughly one minute and 41 seconds into the tape, was a new recording that was made over the final part of the original recording, the audio expert found.[33]
Cadman ultimately cast his vote in 2005 with the governing Liberals. With his support, the House voted evenly, 152 to 152, on Bill C-48. That left Speaker Peter Milliken, who is a Liberal MP, to break the tie with a vote for the budget.Cadman died of cancer soon after[33]
The Future of Common-Law Libel Actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[34]
A Matter of "Governing' Importance": Providing Business Defamation and Product Disparagement
Defendants Full First Amendment Protection.[35]We reverse the judgment.[36]
The criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism in 16th and 17th century England eventually evolved into various categories of political libel (see slander and libel for the modern incarnation of this law). Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel had been established.[37]
INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS AND PROTECTION OF REPUTATION:A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION BUT NOT SUBSERVIENCE?[38]
Libel and Slander Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 263. [39]"It's time to reform Canadian libel law" [40]
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Libel: Ex-friend's Facebook revenge costs £22,000 in damages at high court.After Grant Raphael had a row with his old school friend Mathew Firsht, he wanted revenge. He disseminated a web of lies via Facebook, to cause Firsht stress and humiliation.[41]
Yesterday Raphael was ordered by the high court in London to pay £22,000 damages to Firsht, after the freelance television cameraman created fake, malicious entries about the businessman.
[41]
Confidential details about Firsht's whereabouts, activities and birthday were "laid bare" on the social networking website for 16 days after Raphael posted the false profiles.[41]
Firsht, managing director of Applause Store Productions, had his sexual orientation and political views misrepresented by Raphael, who also created a company profile called "Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?", from a computer at the flat where Raphael was living in Hampstead, north-west London, in June last year. [41]
Firsht, whose company finds audiences for TV and radio shows including the Big Brother evictions, sued Raphael for libel and misuse of private information. [41]
Deputy Judge Richard Parkes QC awarded Firsht £15,000 for libel and £2,000 for breach of privacy. Firsht's company was also awarded £5,000 for libel.[41]
The judge described the case as an "unfortunate dispute between two former friends". The pair, who went to school together in Brighton, had a business dispute about six years ago.[41]
Firsht forgot about it and became successful with Applause Store Productions. "He is plainly a businessman of single-minded drive and dedication, and he did not strike me as being the kind of man to waste valuable time on ancient disputes," the judge said. [41]
By contrast, Raphael's company had gone into voluntary liquidation.[41]
His claims that the entries were created by gatecrashers at his house party were "built on lies", the judge found.[41]
The profiles were on the site for just over two weeks until Firsht's brother spotted them. Facebook took them down. [41]
Jo Sanders, media lawyer at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, said: "The significance of this case is that it shows that what you post is not harmless, but has consequences. [41]
"Sat at home or school or in the office, it's easy to think of social networking sites as harmless fun, that it's like chatting with friends, and that things posted there are either a joke or just a mischievous way of causing embarrassment. This ruling puts an end to that."[41]
Libel reform is at risk, all because of a fit of pique .[42]
The defamation bill returns to the Lords on Monday. It is vital that Puttnam (a good man who seems to have lost his bearings on free speech) withdraws his amendments. If he and his allies stand firm, the government would be put in an impossible position. Kill the defamation bill or introduce draconian measures by the back door.[42]
Benjamin Suarez, owner of Suarez Corp., filed the suit because he felt that Meeks had damaged his reputation and hurt his business by saying he was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams," and saying "he (Suarez) has a mean streak." To back up his opinion,
Meeks cited accusations made by the Washington state attorney general's office concerning Suarez's direct marketing practices.[43]
In August of 1994 Suarez Corp. made Meeks an offer he couldn't refuse. They agreed to settle the case for $64 -- to cover administrative court costs. The company refused to comment on why they agreed to settle the lawsuit.[43]
If the case had gone to trial, Meeks's lawyer thinks Meeks would have been able to win anyway. "The defendants in libel or defamation suits involving the Internet have enhanced First Amendment rights," says Marburger. "The plaintiff has to prove actual malice. In other words, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant made false statements or
was negligent." Marburger's only regret is that they didn't get to set that precedent in court.[43]
Group Libel
NY Times v. Sullivan (Defamation)
- Landmark Cases
- Episode # 9
- Landmark Cases
- Episode # 9
Joseph Tanenhaus
Cornell Law Review
Vol.35
Issue 2
Winter 1950
"Group libel" is a rag-bag phrase used to include a wide range of critical comment that particular groups find objectionable.[44]
In broad terms, group libel laws may be said to be enactments whereby the publishers and disseminators of statements that tend to disparage racial and religious groups are rendered legally responsible for their actions.[44]
Legislation of this nature is by definition a restriction on the freedom of discussion.
To curtail criticism, however virulent and ill-tempered, is a step so serious
as to be taken only if investigation discloses that substantially more good than evil would result by so proceeding.[44]
The law of libel offers both a civil and a criminal remedy for group defamation. A civil action can arise in two distinct ways. [44]
First, a suit can be brought by a member of the group defamed. [44]
In the early years of the seventeenth century one Lacy referred to the seventeen men against
whom he was then engaged in a law suit as those "that helped to murther
Henry Farrer."(Foxcraft v. Lacy, HOBART 89a, 80 Eng. Rep. 239 , 1613) None of the men was named. [44]
The King's Bench, upholding a lower court judgment for Mr. Foxcraft, ruled that each one
of the seventeen had as much cause for individual action as if each had actually been named.[44]
This is the first known instance in which an individual was allowed to maintain an action against the libeler of a group. From a subsequent group of leading cases[45] have evolved certain principles which may be categorically stated.[44]
Defamation of a large group gives rise to no civil action on the art of an individual member of the group unless he can show special application of the defamatory matter to himself.[44]
Defamation of a small group gives rise to civil action on the part of each individual member of the group.[44]
1. if the defamatory language applies to each and every member as an individual and not solely to the group as a collectivity[44]
or 2. if the group is so small that the language of necessity applies to each and every member.[44]
To Stop
'Horrible And False' Articles - Newsy
