Mass. GOP Senate candidate claims defamation for mailer on rape victims

[jefferson_dem]

Mass. GOP Senate candidate claims defamation

The Associated Press
Saturday, January 16, 2010; 5:51 PM

BOSTON -- Republican Scott Brown charged Saturday that a Democratic mailing against his U.S. Senate campaign violates a Massachusetts law prohibiting false statements against a political candidate.

The cover of a four-page mailer sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party says, "1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away."

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend "to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate," with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Brown campaign legal counsel Daniel Winslow said, "People can shade things and spin things, but it has to have some kernel of truth."

Brown is locked in a dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley, the state's attorney general, in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, who is not related to the famed Kennedy political family, is also on Tuesday's ballot.

Winslow called on the Democratic Party and the Coakley campaign to disavow the mailer's claim. The Brown campaign plans to wait until Tuesday, the next business day, before seeking a legal remedy, he said.

Coakley campaign spokesman Corey Welford said: "This is a failed attempt by his campaign to divert attention from the fact that Scott Brown filed an amendment that would have prevented women who have been raped from getting the health care that they need."

A party spokeswoman did not immediately return an e-mail seeking comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011602324_pf.html

More on the mailer in question, click - http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/dem-mail-scott-brown-wants-hospitals-to-turn-away-all-rape-victims/

[Ian David]

1. It's right "on the line" but still defensibly true. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

5. Absolutely legally defensible.

It doesn't matter though because the suit is all about posturing and politics anyway.

[karynnj]

23. Could he argue the meaning of "wants" vs "wanted"?

Though arguing verb tenses is pretty weak. (I wish they would have simply said what he really did - with the amendment number and all.) It had to be a close decision for his campaign to go after this as it will give the amendment even more attention. So, they likely think this will offend more people than will be offended by hearing of his amendment. The fact that he pleaded ignorance of his amendment suggests he knows that this amendment was not a good idea. It is also an interesting contrast to him saying he is pro choice, as a pro life group says he is pro life. I hope all of this blows up in his face - and he is made to chose one or the other.

[Mass]

2. There is no defamation because the inside says exactly what it is about

This said, I disliked it and thought it would have been better to talk about either the bank tax or the 9/11 firefighters bill.

[Ian David]

6. Ahhh... point and match. Coakley is right. Scott Brownshirt is wrong. n/t

[MadBadger]

3. It definitely has a kernel of truth

It's stretched a little, but not way off base at all.

[democrattotheend]

4. Whose idea was this flyer?

I don't know whether it qualifies as defamation, but it's clearly pretty far from the truth and I think it will backfire. What were they thinking putting this out?

[Mass]

7. No, the flyer is fairly close to the truth. The front cover is clearly for shock effect,

but the inside explains what it is about very clearly.

[Ian David]

8. You gotta read the INSIDE of the flier. The cover is just the headline or "hook."

Besides, the key word is "WANTS."

Scott Brown WANTS...

Can Scott Brown prove what he does or does not WANT?

Can Scott Brownshirt prove that Martha Coakley is lying about what she thinks Scott Brown WANTS?

In any case, the inside of the flier is 100% accurate about what Scott Brown DID, which supports Martha Coakley having a legitimate reason to believe she's telling the truth about what what Scott Brown WANTS.

The undisputed facts on the OTHER side of the flier are damning enough against Scott Brownshirt.

Does he REALLY want to fall victim to The Streisand Effect by taking this to court?

[Tempest]

10. See post #2

It states Brown's position clearly and truthfully.

[Ian David]

9. Scott Brown is a WATB

That's Whiny-ass Titty-Baby

Anti-gay Repuke Mass. Legislator reads profanity-laced speech to High School kids
Topic started by IanDB1 on Feb-09-07 01:01 PM (10 replies)
Last modified by One_Life_To_Give on Feb-12-07 12:26 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=48129

See also:

Scott Brown vs Martha Coakley on the issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7483204

Phonebank from home for Martha Coakley- Stop Scott Brown!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x33906

[Blaukraut]

11. Same coward who sends his daughters out defending his ass

On the same subject. This guy is a despicable, lying scumbag.

[Xipe Totec]

12. Somebody call the WHAAAAMBULANCE!

What a useless whiner.

[Irish_shark]

13. The Plum line seems to take issue with the mailer

"As Coakley’s own Web site says, after Brown’s amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms to provide rape victims with emergency contraceptives, and the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests."

From the link in the OP.

Plus doesn't the vote simply mean that hospital should find people without religious complaints to assist the victims? Did Brown really want to "turn them all away"?

He goes on to say, "The mailer could be related to the fact that internal Dem polling reportedly shows Coakley under-performing with less-affluent women."

[Ian David]

14. More nuanced than the FRONT of the flier suggests. The Nuance is inside.

Thanks for attacking the Democratic candidate... again... for the second time (that I've seen) in only your first 18 posts on DU.

[Irish_shark]

15. You accuse The Plum's progressive blogger Greg Sargent of attacking a Democratic candidate

Because I said what he said, and he didn't make a distinction between Front and inside.

2) I will pay you money if you show me where I attacked Coakley in the past.

3) So are you saying that there's defamation in the cover?

[Ian David]

16. No, I am not saying there is defamation on the cover.

3) No, I am not saying there is defamation on the cover.
2) Linking to prior threads to "call-out" someone is a violation on DU, so I won't play that game.
1) Greg Sargent is simply mistaken.

[Irish_shark]

17. Much better

Now other members are aware that you think that it's not simply I, but a prestigious progressive blogger who is wrong on this, and you claim that what the cover say is false but is not defamation because the inside is nuanced. I like your clarification.

[jefferson_dem]

18. Straw man.

Are you arguing that Sargent's claim that the "whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests" amounts to a defense of Brown's silly lawsuit? You do know that these direct mailings are not interested in nuance...but in persuading voters. Right? And, of course, the Plum Line is interested in providing critical commentary on American politics.

[Irish_shark]

19. I think it will all come down to this

If the judge determines that the contents of the inside of that mailer can be accurately summarized by the front-page quote (i.e. that Brown wanted all raped women turned away from hospital), the lawsuit will fail.

And I simply said that Sargent "took issue" with the mailer. He didn't say whether he thought the lawsuit would succeed or not.

[Mass]

21. It wont go in front of a judge. Brown is in search of media attention here.

[Ian David]

24. I was just about to say the same thing. n/t

[depakid]

20. That's both defamatory AND politically stupid

Whoever's behind it should be quietly shuffled into a mailroom position.

Way to take the wind out of the sails of the original charge- and Brown's daughters' pathetic reactions.

It's almost as if they WANT to lose this seat.

[Mass]

22. It is definitively stupid, particularly when they had things like this to exploit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7484054&mesg_id=7484054

(I doubt it will ever go to a judge, with the election on Tuesday, but this is going to cost a media cycle)