Could Rev Wright hire an attorney and sue for defamation/libel/slander?

[Skwmom]

While a politician might be fair game, destroying an individual to bring down a politician should not. Could Wright hire someone to shut up Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and all of the other talking heads? Aren't they pretty terrified of Lin Wood, the attorney that won truckloads of money from the media?

Taking clips and using them to trash one's reputation shouldn't be allowed.

[bow-tie]

1. I listened to him

last nite on PBS and he said "damned" verb, not "damn" adverb? He said that instead of blessing america he(God) damned america for the rotten things america has done. These facts are not refuted.

[Skwmom]

4. But they have taken "portions" to paint an inaccurate picture of Wright.

His reputation has been severely damaged because the manner in which the "facts" have been represented. Plus, I find it hard to believe that Fox News hasn't really stepped over the line. If nothing else, I think hiring someone like Lin Wood, who they are terrified of, would shut them up.

[lob1]

11. As I was reading your reply, CNN played the very cut you talk about. But

CNN bleep the word, so we can't hear if it's "damn" or "damned".

[Bake]

19. Utter bullshit!

I've listened to it enough times, and first of all, I don't hear it as "damned." Second, "damned" would destroy the homiletical parallelism between "bless" and "damn." And it would totally destroy the meaning IN CONTEXT of what he was saying, if you understand the Old Testament prophetic tradition carried forward into the modern pulpit.

Bake

[bilgewaterbill]

58. What "facts"? You didn't state a single fact other than you "listened" on PBS.

[DogPoundPup]

73. Here's the FACTS from PBS interview:

Bill Moyers Interviews Rev. Jeremiah Wright
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3635/bill_moyers_interviews_jeremiah_wright/

[benddem]

2. We should be so lucky

to have ministers like Rev. Wright. I thought he was wonderful. O'Reilly and Gingrich are going after him.http://thinkprogress.org/

[FlaGranny]

15. I listened to his entire sermon and

watched the entire Moyers interview. I'm an atheist, but I think that man might be able to turn me into a Christian or at least a regular churchgoer. He REALLY understands what Christianity is or should be.

[graycem]

59. That's the biggest

irony of the whole thing. You have all of these so-called Christians ready to judge the man. I guess they all forget that part of their bibles. That's what bothers me most about all religions. They're so selective over which principles they think should guide their religion, or which ones are convenient to follow. They're all hypocrites, every last one of them.

[EFerrari]

3. If you have two minutes and want to do something,

write a note to the New York Times editorial page -- who still has the mendacity to call his rhetoric racist TODAY.

Here is the column:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5692420

Here is the address: [e-mail]

Keep your note to about 150 words.

Here is a sample, the one I wrote this morning:

Editor,

If this editorial page is persisting in calling Reverend Wright's rhetoric "racist", it is participating in a media lynching and owes him and Trinity Church an apology.

There is nothing racist about Wright's actual remarks in context. And I don't know which is worse -- that the Times continues to baselessly attack a decorated Marine, a learned historian and priceless community leader or that the Times is apparently using Fox News as a source.

Elizabeth Ferrari

* * *

push BACK.

[Skwmom]

5. Will do. I long ago realized the Times is a rag, with just more "formal" wrapping.

They have no integrity. I wasn't surprised that they endorsed a compulsive liar.

[EFerrari]

6. They endorsed a liar when they didn't report Ohio.

:hi:

[Terri S]

7. Done!

Thank you, Elizabeth. I hope more will do the same.

[EFerrari]

8. Thanks, Terri!

:applause:

[SeattleGirl]

23. Excellent letter!

I'll have to work on composing my own.

(And thanks for the link....)

[EFerrari]

47. Great. Thank you!

:hi:

[Frank Booth]

9. He could, but he'd lose.

It's almost impossible to win against a media outlet for defamation in the US. In this case, he would definitely lose because it's a story that attracts wide public interest.

[Skwmom]

10. Well when the Anna Nicole Smith story hit, Howard K. Stern hired Lin Wood and the

media shut up immediately. Why should a person be demonized, and their reputation destroyed, just because they know a politician which the media is trying to destroy?

[AZ Criminal JD]

12. How has his reputation been destroyed?

Obama supporters on DU think he is a wonderful man. They have posted that. Any competent lawyer would simply show the court those posts and the case would be dismissed. He is wonderful, right?

[EFerrari]

14. Because a decorated Marine, scholar and community leader

with a 30 year history of service to the poor, the homeless, to single moms, to people in jail, to the GLBT community, to youth isn't subject to the standards of Fox News or the desperate Clinton defenders who are now Fox News advocates?

Is he?

[Bake]

21. He'd lose because they're using his own words on video.

His words are subject to interpretation by the listener. C'mon, sfexpat, you know better than this.

Bake

[EFerrari]

22. I suspect that a court would look sternly on an action that resulted

in bomb threats to churches and death threats to ministers.

I could edit George Bush's comments to make him sound like bin Laden. So could you. At that point, the words aren't Junior's, are they?

That's what they did and those were the results. I'm not a lawyer but the severity of the consequences -- and in especial, the threats leveled at a black church would NOT be taken lightly by any court.

[Bake]

24. The media's actions did not result in the bomb threats, etc.

They simply publicized his own words. His sermons are videotaped and made available to the public. It's just as likely that they could have been distributed and ended up in the hands of someone who would do something rash.

Besides, it's a pretty tough standard, legally speaking, to make one party responsible for the subsequent criminal actions of another.

I'd say this even if I were an Obama supporter (which you know I am not), but as a lawyer, I have to tell you that in my reasonable opinion, there is no cause of action for libel or incitement to violence here.

Limpballs' calls for riots in Denver, now that might be another matter!

Bake

[EFerrari]

25. But the editing did result in death and bomb threats.

We may be so caught up in the political stuff, we lose track of what happens out there.

In fact, this was 'way more serious than Rush's nonsense. :(

[Bake]

29. Did it CAUSE the bomb threats?

Okay, you've said you're not a lawyer, so let me walk you through it.

First, the OP was talking about an action for libel. There is no cause of action for libel because (a) they didn't defame him - they used his own videotaped words which were already in publication, and (b) he's a public figure, so in order for him to recover, he'd have to show that they knowingly published false statements about him or published them in reckless disregard for the truth, which damaged his reputation. You can't even show that the statements were false, because they came out of his own mouth. They didn't edit a bunch of single words together to make him seem to say what he said -- they simply lifted a continuous clip of his sermon. So no cause of acton for libel. Truth is a complete defense to libel.

Second, you seem to be conflating libel into a cause of action for incitement to violence. Since there was no call for violence, you can't say (legally speaking) that the media's actions were the proximate cause of the any bomb threats. Like I said, there is no way to say that the media's actions caused someone's subsequent intervening criminal action. You just can't. You may not like it, but that's the law.

And again, I'd say that even if I were an Obama supporter. You just don't like what the media has said about Wright. Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but that's just tough. What they did isn't actionable.

Bake
Do I need to put the Esq. after my name?

[Skwmom]

60. The funny thing about lawyers, like doctors, accountants, economists, and other professionals is

that you can get a group together and they would have differing opinions. In addition, the sad truth is that just because someone holds a license in the U.S. doesn't mean that they have all the right answers or that they are even really qualified to perform the job for which they are licensed.

I think an argument could be made that by selecting certain snippets (and don't forget the lovely commentary added by the talking heads) they intended to create a false impression and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth BECAUSE anyone with a shred of decency would have declined to participate in such a smear job.

There should be a legal remedy for the wrong done to Rev Wright.

[MissMarple]

27. Crux of the matter...misrepresenting and causing harm....on purpose.

I wonder if he rises to the level of "public figure" that gives detractors carte blanche in their quite pointed attacks.

[Bake]

32. Yes. He's a public figure.

Just like Jerry Falwell was a public figure when he tried to sue Hustler for libel.

He's the pastor of a 1,000+ member megachurch. His sermons are videotaped and widely distributed by teh church. He's a public figure.

That doesn't, by the way, give anybody "carte blanche" to say anything they like. They can't publish something that they know is false, or in reckless disregard for the truth.

Bake

[Skwmom]

61. On what grounds did they find Jerry Falwell a public figure? Most people have heard of Jerry

Falwell. Very few people knew who Rev Wright was before this controversy.

[Skwmom]

36. You need actual malice with a public figure so it's not exactly carte blanche.

The Fox news reporters foaming at the mouth seems like actual malice to me.

[Skwmom]

35. Sounds like they're inciting people to riot and commit bodily harm.

And unlike Bush, Rev Wright is NOT a politician.

[AZ Criminal JD]

45. Yes he is.

He is a public figure. Not only is he a public figure but he is a commercial public figure. He sold DVDs of his sermons. You can't sell your words and then complain that your reputation has been harmed when someone broadcasts them.

[noel711]

49. Wright didn't sell the DVDs, the church did...

when my church makes tapes/DVDs of my sermons,
usually they are free, and folks can make a donation.

However, sometimes DVD's have a suggested 'donation' price,
earmarking the proceeds to go to a charity, like World Hunger Appeal.

And if my words/sermons were criticised, or broadcast,
causing controvery for my church, my attitude would be
'Caveat emptor'! Buyer beware! These words may disturb you!

Which is what a good sermon should do: Comfort the afflicted,
and afflict the comfortable.

Sounds Wright to me!

[Bake]

76. Whether they were sold or distributed for free is irrelevant.

As is saying that it was the church and not Wright personally - he's the pastor, he was certainly involved in the distribution and I'm pretty sure you know that. It is a distinction without significance.

What's the saying? "A prophet is not without honor ..." I do agree with you about comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.

He intended his words to be controversial. And guess what? THEY ARE. He can't turn around and sue over it. Instead, he ought to be glad they're being talked about!

Bake

[Skwmom]

17. I wouldn't be surprised to find Wright subject to verbal attacks when he

is out in public.

These posts would not equal the case being dismissed.

[AZ Criminal JD]

46. No just one factor.

I can think of many reasons the case would be dismissed without a trial.

[Frank Booth]

13. I don't know about the Anna Nicole Smith story.

I can tell you that if he filed a case in California, it would almost certainly be thrown out within a couple months. And other states have similar defamation laws. That's why so many defamation suits get filed in the UK instead of the US.

I agree that Wright has been unfairly vilified, and it's a shame that no one has to pay for it.

[Skwmom]

16. Has any NON-politician smeared during a political attack ever filed suit?

The media seems to be really afraid of Lin Wood.

[Frank Booth]

26. I'm sure someone has. Just about anything you can think of people have sued over.

It doesn't mean they'll win though. See the case listed in the post below called New York Times v. Sullivan, which set the standard for modern defamation suits. Actual malice is essentially impossible to prove. And many states have laws that are even more stringent than the Sullivan decision. If he filed in California, he'd almost definitely lose, and he'd probably have to pay the defendants' attorney's fees. So it wouldn't be a very good option.

I don't know anything about Lin Wood. I assume he's good at threatening to stir up a lot of shit and make the defendants' lives miserable, which would lead them to quiet down to avoid that.

[Skwmom]

66. The law is still catching up to the internet and I think the same could be said

for so called cable news shows and hmmm... maybe political organizations (did the RNC have anything to do with this?) I wonder what discovery on a case like this would reveal? Well they do say politics makes for strange bedfellows (which we've certainly witnessed during this primary season).

[Bake]

34. Unfair? Maybe. Libel? Not at all.

Not even close.

Bake

[BadgerLaw2010]

40. Stern was basically being accused of murder(s) with no factual or legal base for it.

He's also a private citizen; being someone's lawyer and executor is not a public figure. By definition these roles normally carry great discretion with them. There was public interest involved, but it's quite a stretch to say that that would open Stern up to accusations of homicide.

Accusing someone of baseless crimes is never going to be protected. And it can be very expensive. See Richard Jewell.

[Skwmom]

44. Stern a PRIVATE citizen? Wasn't he in her reality show, forever making $$$$$$$$$$$$ of off

being in the press. I don't see how he was a private citizen.

I think there is a PUBLIC interest involved here. Political operatives and corporate media should not be able to destroy someone's reputation to further their candidate of choice. Politicians have always been viewed as fair game but Rev Wright is NOT a politician.

[BadgerLaw2010]

72. Stern's privacy is at least arguable. The criminal accusations are the more important part.

Affiliates of celebrities are an interesting question. At what point does someone working in a professional capacity around a celeb become a celeb themselves? Stern does have a law license, ethics and competency aside, so he is at least starting in a professional capacity.

That's really a secondary issue.

"Public interest" doesn't cover false accuastions of crimes, and the payouts for that can be enormous. Even if Stern was a public figure, which I don't think he really was, the conduct by Nancy Grace et al was *way* out of bounds.

Given what happened with Richard Jewell, anyone would advise their media client to be a little bit more careful. This was even further out there than Richard Jewell because there was no criminal investigation. Thus, liability exposure would be pretty major in the case of Stern. You've got intentional acts by major corporations that do considerable harm. That could well be eight figures.

Here, there is no liability exposure as there is no question that Wright is a public figure and there is no question that he said the material in question. It was distributed by his megachurch on official tape, for crying out loud. He is not being accused of baseless wrongful acts.

As there is no exposure to liability, the media can go nuts.

[Bake]

20. He'd lose, further, because he's a public figure.

See New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires actual malice (or reckless disregard of the truth) for libel in cases involving public figures.

If they said he was fucking a goat, he'd win, because that would be patently false. In this case, he'd lose.

Bake

[Skwmom]

37. Reckless disregard for the truth? I thought the media demonstrates that on a daily basis?

[Seeker30]

18. Most idiotic thread ever

One cannot sue over ones own actions.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

30. Kick and Rec your post.

[Skwmom]

31. Taking small portions of a video to distort someone's reputation and character

is not just showing the American Public one's actions (and for you to believe it is nothing more than showing one's actions is idiotic).

[Bake]

33. Fine. You get him to file suit and we'll see what happens.

Bake

[Frank Booth]

53. I agree. I'm an Obama supporter and I think that Wright's been treated horribly.

But I practice in this area of the law quite a bit, and if someone in Wright's position came to me there's no way I'd recommend that he sue. In fact, I think it would border on malpractice to recommend a lawsuit.

[Bake]

80. Finally! An Obama supporter who is willing to recognize the truth!

Good for you, my friend.

:hi:

Bake

[BadgerLaw2010]

41. He's actually saying the words, he's SOL. Truth is a total bar to relief for libel.

It doesn't matter how bad something is if its true. If Wright was being dubbed or spliced then he would have a case, but he's not. It's a segment of an official video put out by his church. There is no question as to the authenticity of the statements.

[Skwmom]

43. No offense, but that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. If you take

snippets and use them to create a false impression, adding words to further create this false impression, where is the TRUTH in that????????


Sorry, but your argument sounds like more Clinton logic to me.

[Bake]

50. Sounds like the LAW to me ...

Bake

[boppers]

63. Hey, Bake, if he was your client, what would you do?

If he was mine, I wouldn't go after the repetition of the video, but the "color commentary" the talking heads were adding.

I'm curious if you'd do the same.

[Bake]

77. I'd tell him he has no case.

And then I'd say be glad everyone is talking about him. He intended to be controversial, and sure enough he WAS/IS. It is helping get his message out.

And I'd tell him to be careful.

Bake

[Skwmom]

82. No offense, but I think the smart, think "outside the box" type of attorney I am talking about

wouldn't be spending their time posting on a public blog. In addition, there's a reason why people SPECIALIZE in certain areas of law.

[Seeker30]

51. Its the law...learn it then speak

then maybe you won't look completely clueless.

[Skwmom]

55. Hmmm... but maybe a smart lawyer who thinks outside the box could find

a way to do something about this? That's why there's lawyers that make new case law and lawyers that don't.

[ImpeechBush]

70. Lets sue the media for reporting my words verbatim

because people might think less of me for saying them. A cease and desist order restraining the press from covering public speeches. What a novel idea.

Wright is working the TV talk show circuit, giving speeches at major public events and people are arguing that he isn't a public figure? Where are they getting these strange ideas?

[jesus_of_suburbia]

28. Not likely. GOD DAMN AMERICA... can't really be slandered now, can it?

[BadgerLaw2010]

38. No chance. He's a public figure. He said it. End of inquiry.

[Seeker30]

48. Not to mention he profits off of selling the videos!

These people are to damn funny

:rofl:

[Skwmom]

56. Isn't it his church that profits from the sale of the videos? I would think so.

Thus, would a preacher whose church sells videos of his sermons (as a means to raise funds for the church)be treated as a public figure?

[rug]

39. Yes, and he has a line of credit to pay for it.

Why doesn't he?

[jeffrey_X]

42. You mean 30 second sound bytes don't equate to 20 years?

I mean he's said the same thing in all of his sermons, no?

[Seeker30]

52. Why would he need to hire an Attorney? OBarry is an Attorney

[Skwmom]

67. I think some enterprising lawyers (for the publicity alone) would LOVE to take a case like this.

The RNC, 527s and Clinton backers already looking at a 2012 run won't let it drop, so I think it would be a smart move to put them on the defense. In addition, it might deter the networks from slandering others. They are like tabloids so why shouldn't they be sued with the same frequency?

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Why not? What better way to prove how American you are than to bring a lawsuit?

Religious leaders get many benefits from this society that us mere mortals don't, the biggest of them being a tacit assumption of their moral superiority. Tax laws work to their advantages, and they're immune to many troubles.

He made his point with his God-damning (as if he can tell this mighty superorganism what he/she/it should do, by the way) and he got some kudos at least at the time for doing so. Reciprocity sucks, but those who play with a rigged deck don't like to hear that.

[Barack_America]

57. I'm more interested in copyright issues, and whether he and the church...

...gave permission for the news stations to use the footage. I certainly don't see why they would have given permission to Fox and the NC RNC.

[Skwmom]

62. Fair use? But the way they used the footage could hardly be deemed fair.

Plus, they probably used the footage (in part) to increase their ratings and profit.

[MonkeyFunk]

64. Yes

he could hire an attorney, and he could sue.

He'd be laughed out of court, though.

[Skwmom]

65. A top fundraiser for Gore sued WND for defamation and the case was settled.

While the acts by WND (they accused the fundraiser of wrongdoing) aren't the same as those committed by the media and whoever put the Wright attack together , it still involves an attack on a person to bring down a politician/boost your media revenues.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49161

I just don't think a legal action by Wright can be so easily dismissed.

Was it ever determined who exactly started the Wright attack? I'm sure discovery in a legal action would yield all kinds of interesting results.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. And he was not a public figure

and he was accused of wrongdoing, including arson. Not the same as using Wright's own words against him.

[Skwmom]

69. Are you sure Wright is a public figure? I noted that what he was accused of was different.

However, they were doing more than using someone's own words against them. They took selective portions of sermons and added their own commentary to create a false image of Wright. Furthermore, accusing someone of a crime is not a required element for defamation.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. Fine....

believe what you want. But it's asinine to think he has a chance in hell of suing anybody and winning.

[AZ Criminal JD]

78. Your link has nothing about a settlement. Exactly the opposite.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. If He Wanted To Look Like An Absolute Moron Who Would Be Laughed At, I Guess He Could.

[Bentcorner]

75. Because people have played clips of his own words?

The man has only himself to blame for people thinking he's a bigot.

[Yossariant]

79. TRUTH is an absolute defense to a defamation suit.

Of course, in America, anybody can sue anyone for any thing.

If Wright sued for defamation, though, he'd be paying the attorneys' fees for "Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and all of the other talking heads" for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

[Skwmom]

81. What is TRUTHFUL about taking select snippets and adding inflammatory and misleading commentary by

paid media talking heads? I hardly think his suit would rise to the level of a "frivolous lawsuit" that would justify his paying the attorney fees.

[AZ Criminal JD]

83. We have a troublesome thing called the First Amendment.

[Texas Hill Country]

84. he is a public figure, so no, he cant.