Times vs. Sullivan , as anyone who has taken law or journalism knows, holds that public figures have a much higher burden in libel actions than other people. (That's L.B. Sullivan, then police chief of Montgomery, Alabama to the right. From the University of Missouri in Kansas City.)
To win at trial, public figures must show that a story about them showed "a reckless disregard for the truth" or that a lie was deliberate. This makes it very hard for public figures to win libel awards, although to this day some do.
The question comes up because I was chatting via e-mail with Steve Ross, a journalism professor at Columbia, who said Markos Moulitsas had over-reacted to a question on his annual journalism survey. The survey asked how people felt about campaigns "buying" journalists, citing a deal between the Dean campaign and "bloggers" in 2003.
Readers here know I covered that story, that the bloggers weren't bought but hired as consultants, that they didn't act bought, and that their righteous recommendations were then ignored, so Moulitsas to this day fills a role now DNC chair Howard Dean should by rights be filling. But what brought me up short was Steve's statement that Moulitsas, alias Daily Kos, should know better, since he is "a public figure."
A public figure, eh? A blogger a public figure?
Well that's interesting. I assume, then, that Glenn Reynolds is a public figure, and any suit he might file for libel is going to have a very difficult time. (Lucky me.) We can't very well have anonymous public figures and thus the "outing" of Atrios as Duncan Black, a Philadelphia economics teacher (left), last year becomes just a public service.
And if that's true, then, is Pamela Jones, a public figure? Would that mitigate any possibility of a successful legal action against Maureen O'Gara? (I don't know if anything has been filed or might be -- I'm just spitballing here.)
Wait, there's more.
For that matter, am I now a public figure? I am sometimes interviewed, about a variety of subjects. I certainly have a byline that some folks recognize.
No? I didn't think so. (Rats.)
But if I'm not a public figure, where is the boundary separating me from Moulitsas, Reynolds or Jones? How does a blogger know when they're approaching the Times vs. Sullivan boundary so that they might, to protect their rights, just shut up?
Or, in the Age of the Blog, is everyone now a public figure?
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brad Hutchings on May 13, 2005 04:14 PM writes...
Dana, I disagree completely that there is any shade of grey here. Either Ms. Jones has Jehova's Witnesses pamphlets strewn all over the back seat of her car or she doesn't. I'm sure Ms. O'Gara brought a camera along. It's so absurd it's funny. The reaction against O'Gara isn't an insinuation that she made stuff up (libel), but that she violated Jones' privacy.
Jones's supporters are upset that she's being "stalked". In actuality, a whole can of questions about Jones' identity and credibility have been opened up. Not answering them will not make them go away. She has had tremendous influence on SCO's ability to sell IP licenses and on SCOX stock price, to name two things. This demands a certain amount of transparency, which to date has not been there. She claims to be a paralegal. Where is her certificate from? Could we start there?
Permalink to Comment2. ben on May 13, 2005 06:17 PM writes...
She did bring a camera, but there's no evidence whatsoever that proves she was in the right place, stalking the right people.
The questions you ask about PJ could be asked *of* her. She's not hard to contact. As for transparency, if there's a problem about what she said about SCOX and its licences, then you raise that problem. You challenge claims she's made that you think are inaccurate or statements she's made that you think are unfair, instead of making baseless, vague insinuations.
Permalink to Comment3. Brad Hutchings on May 13, 2005 07:03 PM writes...
Sorry Ben. There is evidence in a trail of changed phone numbers, unless you think Ms. O'Gara made that up. If Pamela Jones is really Pamela Jones, then this is her. In that case, it's only libel if it isn't true.
Perhaps this strange Pamela Jones is a victim of identity theft. Who's the criminal then? Perhaps she is a convenient prop. See, in that case, you guys have to start asking who she really is. If you're given the opportunity to find out, and you choose to remain duped, you're the suckers, and your credibility suffers. Hers is going to be shot anyway because either she is a nutcase or a fraud. Why sink on her ship? Why not at the very leasy insist that she clear up the record?
The funniest part of this is that MoG ended up down this road because she did just as you suggest I do. She asked PJ to appear on her show so she could talk, debate, and basically shoot the s**t with her. They even do phone interviews on that show. PJ was just totally ellusive. Yet she exerts (whether she wants to or not) tremendous influence in the ongoing affairs of SCO and even in the open source movement. Don't a lot of people have a real need to know what's going on here?
Permalink to Comment4. kos on May 13, 2005 08:59 PM writes...
I don't think there's any doubt that I'm a public figure. The standard for libel is much higher. In short, I'd have to prove a "reckless disregard for the truth".
"Professor" Ross has been shown that his assertion was wrong and refuses to correct the record. That is, quite simply, a reckless disregard for the truth.
What's telling is that every week some journalist somewhere repeats a variation of the "Dean paid off bloggers to support him" story. Yet when presented with the evidence and facts, every single one of them has retracted and apologized. Ross is the first to refuse to do so.
Coming from someone doing a survey on "journalism ethics", this says something about the Ross' charaacter.
Permalink to Comment5. kos on May 13, 2005 09:00 PM writes...
I don't think there's any doubt that I'm a public figure under the law. The standard for libel is much higher. In short, I'd have to prove a "reckless disregard for the truth".
"Professor" Ross has been shown that his assertion was wrong and refuses to correct the record. That is, quite simply, a reckless disregard for the truth.
What's telling is that every week some journalist somewhere repeats a variation of the "Dean paid off bloggers to support him" story. Yet when presented with the evidence and facts, every single one of them has retracted and apologized. Ross is the first to refuse to do so.
Coming from someone doing a survey on "journalism ethics", this says something about the Ross' charaacter.
Permalink to Comment6. Mork on May 14, 2005 04:33 AM writes...
How's this for ethics in journalism?
Following an interview with Sys-Con's head man where he actually defends O'Gara's stalking piece:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/pills/fuat_kircaali_interview/
3 of the LinuxWorld editors have immediately resigned.
James Turner (senior editor)
http://turner.linuxworld.com/read/1278212.htm
Dee-Ann LeBlanc
http://dee.linuxworld.com/read/1278292.htm
Steve Suehring
http://www.braingia.org/webnotes/index.php?title=linuxworld_resignation
None of them could bear working for a man who had such an incredible lack of ethics or integrity.
ALSO, Fred Brown of the Society for Professional Journalism's Ethics Committee has weighed in on the O'Gara issue. James Turner mailed him the O'Gara piece, and Mr. Brown was in agreement of it being a bullying and harrassing.
Mr. Brown's response is here:
Permalink to Commenthttp://turner.linuxworld.com/read/1277987.htm
7. _Arthur on May 14, 2005 01:48 PM writes...
Maureen O'Gara article is DEFAMATORY.
Even leaving out the slurs and slanted language.
1) She use PJ's (assumed) faith as the main reason to assert that PJ cannot be Pamela Jones. (Yeah, I know, it is pretty stupid reasoning)
2) She accuses PJ of a federal crime, "Identity Theft" on flimsy grounds. That's textbook defamation.
You cannot accuse someone of being a wife-beater, then say it was not really defamatory because the guy wasn't married anyways.
Maureen O'Gara publicly accused PJ --in writing-- of stealing Pamela Jones identity, or vice-versa.
Her best defense would be to affirm that her article was so confusing it was not defamation, really!
Or that she was completely drunk when she wrote it. [Defamation]
Permalink to Comment8. Ned Ulbricht on May 14, 2005 06:05 PM writes...
At Groklaw, Pamela Jones (PJ) exercises her first amendment right to publish public documents which have been filed in Federal and state courts.
That activity is one of Ms. Jone's civil rights.
In Maureen O'Gara's article (via Google's cache), she identifies Ms. Jones as a "61-year-old Jehovah's Witness" and then goes on to write:
Whether or not Ms. O'Gara might choose to assert truth, good-faith belief, lack of malice or any affirmative defenses against any hypothetical complaints of defamation or false-light invasion of privacy, there is another bundle of issues here.
Does it seem reasonable to you that Ms. O'Gara may have attempted, on account of either Ms. Jones's reported age or religious affilitation to intimidate Ms. Jones? Did Ms. O'Gara intend to block Ms. Jones's access to the courts, or deter Ms. Jones from exercising her first amendment rights?
How exactly did Ms. O'Gara determine that a private phone had been used to contact "the courts in Utah"?
Permalink to Comment