Tag: libel Page 3 of 5

A troubling libel suit against the Herald

On February 21, 2011

Brad Delp

Geoff Edgers’ story in Sunday’s Boston Globe on the troubled life of Boston singer Brad Delp raises some interesting questions about libel law. The most important is this: If a newspaper publishes a report that is accurate, what obligation does it have to verify that it is also true?

Following Delp’s suicide in 2007, the Boston Herald’s Inside Track reporters, Laura Raposa and Gayle Fee, wrote that Delp’s ex-wife, Micki Delp, blamed Delp’s death on his troubled relationship with Tom Scholz, Boston’s founder and leader. According to court documents examined by Edgers, the Tracksters also relied on e-mails from Micki Delp’s sister Connie Goudreau. (Here’s some more background on the case and its principals.)

Scholz, in turn, sued Micki Delp and Connie Goudreau for defamation, and in 2010 filed a libel suit against the Herald as well, charging that the Herald should have known Micki Delp had a personal vendetta against Scholz. Goudreau has settled with Scholz, but the other cases remain unresolved.

Edgers presents powerful evidence that Delp’s suicide should not be blamed on Scholz. Delp had suffered from depression for years, and his relationship with his fiancée, Pamela Sullivan, was troubled. Still, who knows what could drive a person to suicide?

In simple terms, the legal question is whether the Herald was obliged to go beyond accurately reporting what Micki Delp and Goudreau were telling its reporters and determine whether their accusations against Scholz were actually true. Was Delp as upset with Scholz as his ex-wife and sister-in-law claimed? Did that so traumatize Delp that it could have contributed to his suicidal state of mind?

A verdict against the Herald would be very bad news for the press. Because Scholz is a public figure, he would have to prove that the Herald knew or strongly suspected that its reporting was false. Even if Fee and/or Raposa knew Micki Delp had it in for Scholz, it doesn’t necessary follow that they thought she was lying.

In the relevant Supreme Court case, Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989), the court found in favor of a public official who’d been maligned after it was proven (among other things) that the managing editor of the local newspaper literally ordered reporters not to interview a source or examine documents that might contradict the story she wanted to publish.

That is not remotely what’s at issue in the Scholz case. Based on Edgers’ article, it seems to me that not only did Fee and Raposa not doubt they’d gotten the story right, but that Scholz would have a very difficult time proving they’d gotten it wrong in any definitive way.

Photo (cc) by Craig Michaud via Wikimedia Commons and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Libel suit filed over Gloria Fox’s prison visit

By Dan Kennedy

On April 9, 2010

In Media

Rep. Gloria Fox

The Boston Herald has been hit with a libel suit for the second time this year. The Boston Globe’s David Abel reports that the plaintiff is Joanna Marinova, who accompanied state Rep. Gloria Fox, D-Boston, to the Old Colony Correctional Center in Bridgewater last year.

The Herald published a front-page story on May 28 by Jessica Van Sack claiming Fox had snuck Marinova in to see her boyfriend, a convicted murderer named Darrell Jones, and that Marinova had been “previously bagged for engaging in ‘sexual acts’ with the killer con.” The Herald cited “two prison sources,” both anonymous.

Marinova sued the Herald and WHDH-TV (Channel 7), which also ran the story, saying through her lawyer, David Rich, that the news organizations “blatantly ignored readily available facts that would have demonstrated the falsity of these assertions.”

According to Abel, the Herald declined to respond and no one at Channel 7 would return his calls.

As with a libel suit recently brought against the Herald by Tom Scholz of the band Boston, it makes sense to wait and see what’s in the Herald’s and Channel 7’s official response. In this case, though, Adam Reilly did some reporting last year for the Boston Phoenix that cast considerable doubt on (1) the Herald’s claim that Fox had falsely portrayed Marinova as her aide and (2) that Marinova and Jones had engaged in illicit sex during a prison visit.

Reilly, now a producer with “Greater Boston” on WGBH-TV (Channel 2), noted that Marinova had told the Globe that the so-called sexual contact for which Jones had been punished consisted of Jones touching her knee during a visit. And Reilly pointed to other sources, including Jones’ blog and an official report, that tend to support that version of events.

If the Herald’s and Channel 7’s reporting was wrong, that doesn’t necessarily mean they committed libel. Even though it is Marinova who’s suing, it’s Fox’s involvement that made this a newsworthy story. A judge could rule that because Fox is a public official, Marinova must prove that the Herald and Channel 7 either knew their reporting was wrong or strongly suspected it, yet went ahead anyway — a legal standard known as “reckless disregard for the truth.”

On the other hand, a judge could rule that because Marinova herself is a private person, then she need only prove that the defendants acted negligently.

Looking down the road, I would imagine that Marinova will try to force the defendants to reveal their confidential sources as well.

Needless to say, this will be a very interesting case to watch.

And so they meet again

By Dan Kennedy

On March 17, 2010

In Media

It’s Howard Cooper versus the Boston Herald, round two.

Cooper, you may recall, is the Boston lawyer who represented then-judge Ernest Murphy in his libel suit against the Herald, which had portrayed him as someone who had “heartlessly” demeaned a teenage rape victim. Murphy won a $2 million-plus verdict against the Herald in 2005. I don’t think Murphy was libeled, but Cooper was able to convince a jury otherwise. Here is more than you’ll ever want to know about that case.

Now Cooper is suing the Herald on behalf of Tom Scholz of the band Boston, claiming that Inside Track reporters Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa fabricated quotes attributed to Micki Delp, ex-wife of Boston lead singer Brad Delp, as well as from unnamed “insiders,” to make it appear that Delp had blamed Scholz for her husband’s suicide.

Courthouse News Service has a detailed account of the suit, though there’s a mistake in the lede — Delp committed suicide in 2007, not 1997. The story is accompanied by a copy of the complaint (pdf). I have not had a chance to do more than skim it, so I’m staying away from any detailed analysis. I do see that Cooper cites Boston magazine’s 2006 story “Gals Gone Wild,” by John Gonzalez, as example of what Cooper calls Fee and Raposa’s “unprofessional, irresponsible and reckless tactics and methods.” For good measure, Cooper calls them “so-called ‘reporters.'”

The Herald has not yet filed a response. Herald spokeswoman Gwen Gage tells the Boston Globe, “We’re aware of the complaint and we will review it. Beyond that, we have no further comment.”

In 2006 Mark Jurkowitz wrote an in-depth profile of Cooper for the Boston Phoenix (via Romenesko). The headline: “The media’s worst nightmare?” At One Herald Square, the answer to that question would be a decided “yes.”

ACLU attorney Wunsch on the anti-SLAPP ruling

By Dan Kennedy

On February 1, 2010

In First Amendment

Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, e-mailed her thoughts on the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that journalists are not protected by a state law prohibiting “strategic lawsuits against public participation” — also known as the anti-SLAPP statute. The Associated Press covers the ruling here. Background here. Below is Wunsch’s e-mail, presented in its entirety.

Despite our amicus brief urging otherwise, the SJC has affirmed Judge Hines’s Superior Court denial of the special motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute that had been filed by the journalist, Hollander, after she was sued by the developer, Fustolo. The unanimous opinion is written by Justice Botsford. Her opinion focuses on the fact that Hollander was not seeking to redress a grievance or to petition for relief of her own. She says, “As in Kobrin, the defendant’s conduct was not an attempt to redress a wrong he suffered, nor was he petitioning on his own behalf.”

Although the opinion says that a person is protected only if personally seeking redress of a grievance of his or her own, Justice Botsford distinguishes a case in which an attorney was given protection under the anti-SLAPP statute for his statements on behalf of his clients, and not for himself. To do that, she asserts that reporters occupy a different position with respect to a petitioning party than does the party’s attorney.

“There is nothing about the role or function of a staff reporter of an independent newspaper that by its nature renders the reporter a representative or agent of every, or indeed any, community organization that the reporter may cover,” particularly where the reporter denies representing a particular viewpoint. She contrasts this with Baker v. Parsons, where a biologist employed by an organization testified about her views and was protected by the SLAPP statute. (This reasoning seems to leave out of the equation whether the media outlet itself is the “petitioning party.” She seems to assume that it is only the community-based advocacy groups whose views the journalist is promoting.)

Thus, one of our concerns, that employees of advocacy organizations would not be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, appears alleviated. Even if you are working for someone else as an advocate, as long as it is clear you are advocating for something, you should be protected.

Justice Botsford does reject the concept in Judge Hines’ opinion that because Hollander was paid, she had a private reason for her reporting, and was not sued for her petitioning alone. Being paid does not take a person out of the SLAPP protection.

Finally, Justice Botsford disagrees that this ruling will chill journalists. She cites New York Times v. Sullivan and the protection for reporters under that and under the fair-report doctrine.

As I read the opinion, a reporter writing news stories that are supposedly “objective” will not be protected by the SLAPP statute, despite the very broad definition of petitioning activity. If an editor or publisher wants to stir up the public to get them to support government action by focusing a series of news articles on the subject, too bad. No anti-SLAPP statute protection seemingly for the journalist despite the fact that the definition of petitioning includes this. I do not think this result is correct.

Under the Botsford decision, an opinion columnist is likely going to be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, as is an employee of an advocacy organization. It seems that the concept of objective fair news reporting operates here to deprive news reporters of anti-SLAPP statute protection. One question is whether the newspaper publisher will be protected. The Botsford opinion talks about advocacy organizations but doesn’t seem to recognize that news media organizations can be advocacy organizations or be the “petitioning party” itself, engaged in activity that meets the definition of petitioning under the statute.

SJC rules against journalist-activist

By Dan Kennedy

On February 1, 2010

In First Amendment

Adam Gaffin has already posted some details on the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling earlier today against Fredda Holland, a journalist who claimed that a libel suit filed against her should be dismissed on the grounds that it was aimed at putting a halt to her community activism. Gaffin has posted the full decision as well.

Hollander, a former reporter for the Regional Review, had been active in a neighborhood association along with her husband, Bill Lee. She had used her platform at the Review to oppose plans by a North End developer named Steven Fustolo. When Fustolo sued her for libel, Hollander’s lawyer, Harvey Shapiro, argued that she should be protected by the state’s anti-SLAPP law, an acronym that means “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

For background, click here. Disclosure: I was paid to write an affidavit (pdf) on Hollander’s behalf at an earlier stage of the case.

An important libel ruling by the SJC

By Dan Kennedy

On January 7, 2010

In First Amendment, Media

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision today that reaffirms protections for the news media against libel suits.

The case involved a town employee in Abington who was fired after sexually explicit images were discovered on his town-owned computer. The Enterprise of Brockton published a series of stories on official actions taken against the employee (who was eventually fired), based almost entirely on anonymous sources.

The SJC decision, written by Justice Robert Cordy, found that the fair-report privilege, which allows journalists to report libelous statements made in the course of official proceedings, applies even when those reports are based on anonymous sources.

Cordy also ruled that the Enterprise’s stories were substantially fair and accurate despite an error in one of the stories, and that the ex-employee could not sue the paper for intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

Those are the highlights. First Amendment lawyer Robert Ambrogi offers a deeper analysis here. The full text of the decision is here. (Via Universal Hub.)

Still more on SLAPP and libel

By Dan Kennedy

On November 6, 2009

In First Amendment

Excellent guidance from noted First Amendment lawyer Robert Bertsche.

ACLU lawyer explains libel and SLAPP

By Dan Kennedy

On November 5, 2009

In First Amendment

Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts, offers further analysis of how the state’s anti-SLAPP law would modify libel law if journalist-activist Fredda Hollander wins her appeal, now before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. (SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” and the anti-SLAPP law is aimed at preventing people from abusing the legal system by hauling activists into court.) Wunsch writes in part:

The defendant, the petitioner, may have made some misstatements that are harmful to the plaintiff’s reputation, but in order to give some breathing space to the right to petition, the law provides that as long as the petitioning wasn’t baseless, the SLAPP suit should be thrown out. Some people might think that is unfair but because society benefits when people aren’t afraid to get involved in local government issues, the statute gives them some extra protection.

To which I would add that though anti-SLAPP protection for journalists might offer them some extra protection against libel suits, the overall effect would probably be slight.

In most cases, I suspect, the person bringing the allegedly abusive suit (in Hollander’s case, North End developer Steven Fustolo) would be deemed a public figure. And under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1964 Times v. Sullivan standard, a public figure can’t win a libel case unless he’s able to prove that the person he’s suing made false, defamatory statements knowing they weren’t true, or showing reckless disregard for the truth.

My standard disclosure: Hollander paid me to write an affidavit on her behalf at an earlier stage of her case.

Earlier coverage.

Live-blogging the anti-SLAPP hearing

By Dan Kennedy

On November 2, 2009

In First Amendment, Uncategorized

I’m watching the anti-SLAPP hearing here. Background on the case here.

And that’s a wrap. The Supreme Judicial Court will consider the arguments it heard this morning and issue a decision at some later time. It strikes me that the questions were equally tough for both sides — that Harvey Shapiro, the lawyer for journalist-activist Fredda Hollander, and Bruce Edmands, the lawyer for developer Steven Fustolo, were kept on the defensive during their arguments. No way of saying how this will come out.

To repeat my disclosure: I was paid by Fredda Hollander to write an affidavit (pdf) for her during an earlier stage of the case.

10:03 a.m. Edmands says Shapiro is correct that the media are covered in California, but the law is very different. If Shapiro wants anti-SLAPP protection extended to the media in Massachusetts, Edmands says, then “the correct forum is not this court, respectfully, but the Legislature.”

10:01 a.m. What about letters to the editor? asks one of the justices. Isn’t that petitioning? “It doesn’t have to go directly to the government body. Every official in town reads it,” he says. Edmands responds that letters are “widely understood to be expressions of opinion by the author,” unlike “factual” news stories.

The justice follows up by asking if the publisher wouldn’t be “petitioning” by publishing the letter. Edmands replies that it would be, but that the publisher should be treated differently from a reporter.

9:57 a.m. Edmands says the anti-SLAPP statute has never been extended to the media. It’s pointed out to him that a Superior Court decision did just that. “Don’t knock the Superior Court,” says one of the justices. “Some of us are graduates of the Superior Court.”

9:55 a.m. To clarify — Hollander and her husband, Bill Lee, were active in a North End neighborhood organization. She contends that her journalism for the Regional Review was an extension of that activism.

9:53 a.m. Justice asks what about a newsletter editor railing about an issue to his or her members. Edmands reponds that that would be closer to petitioning activity, but that’s not what Hollander did.

9:52 a.m. Edmands: “I think the statute was really intended to protect people who appear before governmental body … and speak out about their concerns.”

9:50 a.m. Now we’re hearing from Bruce Edmands, lawyer for developer Steven Fustolo, who’s suing Fredda Hollander for libel.

9:47 a.m. Justice asks if all investigative reporting would be covered. Purpose is “to cover something that is wrong so that the government will take action.” Shapiro replies that, yes, such reporting would be covered by anti-SLAPP law.

9:46 a.m. Justice asks if any other jurisdiction has adopted Shapiro’s interpretation. Shapiro replies that California anti-SLAPP law covers First Amendment activity. “They have uniformly covered journalists.” But he concedes the California law is broader in terms of activities that are protected.

9:43 a.m. Justice says applying anti-SLAPP to newspaper reporter is “a whole different kettle of fish.” Shapiro responds that “it embraces broader concepts of petitioning.” He adds: “Using the press is a fundamental form of petitioning.”

9:40 a.m. The justices are concerned that Shapiro’s interpretation would obliterate libel if anti-SLAPP can be invoked.

9:39 a.m. The justices question Shapiro about the lack of a personal stake journalists generally have in the stories they cover, whether they express an opinion or not. The idea is that the anti-SLAPP law generally covers only political activists with a stake in the outcome.

9:37 a.m. Justice asks Shapiro if community newspapers should be treated differently from the Globe or the Herald. Shapiro responds that if the reporter is writing in a way that “enlists public support,” then that is “petitioning activity” and should be covered.

9:36 a.m. Harvey Shapiro, lawyer for Fredda Hollander, is arguing before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court right now.

My affidavit in the anti-SLAPP case

By Dan Kennedy

On November 1, 2009

In First Amendment

Fredda Hollander, an activist-journalist who will appear before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on Monday, has given me permission to post the affidavit (pdf) I wrote for her at an earlier stage of her case. It’s a public document, but given that I was paid to write it, I wanted to check in with her first.

The issue at stake is fairly complicated, and really doesn’t have all that much to do with libel, even though her claim is related to a libel suit filed against her. A North End developer, Steven Fustolo, is suing Hollander for libel in connection with articles she wrote for a local newspaper, the Regional Review. Hollander counters that she did not libel Fustolo, and that his suit is a form of harassment covered by the state’s anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

The anti-SLAPP statute — similar to ant-SLAPP laws in other states — is designed to protect political activists from being harassed by their well-heeled targets, who can afford to abuse the legal system as a form of intimidation. The law specifically states that “petitioning” activity is protected. Hollander’s lawyer, Harvey Shapiro, argues that the grassroots advocacy journalism Hollander engaged in qualifies as “petitioning” in the sense that she was attempting to influence government decisions.

The implications for bloggers and citizen journalists are potentially huge. Not only are such folks frequently motivated by their strong opinions on local issues, but they are far more vulnerable to being damaged by a meritless libel suit than would an established news organization. (Please note that I am not saying Fustolo’s suit is meritless. I am merely saying that, if it is, then Hollander deserves to be able to use the anti-SLAPP law in order to persuade a judge to dismiss his claim.)

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend Monday’s argument because of a family matter. Assuming all systems are go, I’ll be watching the webcast instead.