Jour 4470 Blog 4: A Lot of Libel

I don’t understand why a professional journalist would want to risk their career and reputation by printing lies. Yet, the definition of libel states it is the printing of untruths that can harm another’s reputation or quality of life. Libel can also occur if a truth is published with malicious intent.

Former Texas Tech football coach, Mike Leach, initiated a libel suit against a public relations firm and ESPN in November of 2010. “The suit filed in Texas district court claims the network's coverage of Leach's firing last year was ‘willful and negligent defamation’ and that it failed to ‘retract false and damaging statements’ it made from ‘misinformation’ provided to ESPN by Craig James,” according to an article on ESPN.com.

Reading articles about Leach’s firing made it seem like there were five different versions to the same story. So, to be honest I’m not sure what exactly the truth in this situation is. A question I have is how did Leach know the information provided to ESPN was given by Craig James. I’m sure ESPN has other capable journalists who can find information on their own.

Spaeth Communications is the PR firm in the libel suit. The claim is that Craig James hired the company for "purposes of creating public opinion hostile to Leach," according to ESPN.com.

In my opinion, Leach’s case would be hard to prove. There was so much back and forth between the two parties they both in some way suffered damage to their reputations. Leach is probably more passionate about the damage done to his reputation because his public extermination from his job at Texas Tech University.

The defamation of Mike Leach occurred through what is now known as traditional media, but has the law caught up to the culture of social media? March of 2011 a lawsuit was initiated against public spectacle, Courtney Love, for defaming a designer, Dawn Simorangkir, and costing her the business she started.

After a quarrel over a $4000 payment for a dress, Love took to Twitter, MySpace and Etsy.com, calling Simorangkir a “whore,” a “convicted prostitute,” and other defamatory comments. The thing that stands out to me in this last sentence is that Love actually used MySpace. Who still uses MySpace?

Love argued that the comments weren’t the cause of the designer’s business failing. She said the comments actually helped Simorangkir with her company by noting they had business together. Love also argued that she was simply expressing her opinions.

This case was high-priority news partially because “would have been one of the first high-profile cases addressing the question of what amounts to defamation on social sites and whether alleged defamatory remarks disseminated on social sites have more or less impact than if they were broadcast or published in traditional media,” according to an article on the New York Times website.

The Love case is important because it seems like laws have a hard time catching up to current trends. Twitter and other social media sites like Facebook are filled with people tearing each other apart with arguably defamatory comments. Ultimately the case was settled out of court. I would have liked to hear the court’s decision, though.

Bryan Freedman, Simorankir’s attorney, was quoted saying, “Just because you decide to use 140 characters about how you are feeling at the moment doesn’t exempt you from legal exposure, Mr. Freedman said. “It goes back to what I was taught as a child: Think before you speak,” according the nyt.com article.

The common factor the two previous cases have in common is a well-known figure. The guidelines of libel and slander make it harder for public figures to prove libel. Since, their lives are so open to the public proving an invasion of privacy or any other of the ways to commit libel or slander almost impossible. Almost.

David Beckham wasn’t in the “almost” category previously mentioned. February of 2011 a U.S. federal judge dismissed the case Beckham had against In Touch Magazine. Beckham was suing In Touch for publishing an article stating he cheated on his wife with a prostitute. “US District Judge Manuel Real said in his ruling that Beckham is a public figure and his lawyers hadn't shown any evidence In Touch published the story with malice. He also said that allegations of any infidelity by Beckham would be of interest to the public,” according to an article on northernstar.com.au.

I don’t agree with this reasoning. Even if Beckham is a public figure he is still a person. It seems unfair to me to punish those who have attained success in their lives by denying them the right to their own privacy or to allow others to publish lies about them. Beckham was denied the opportunity to conduct depositions proving he was in London visiting his sick father during a time it was said he was with the prostitute.

People are always going to have an opinion about someone. Even in the age when young people feel the need to treat their social media accounts like diaries it’s still important to monitor what you put out in the world.