Newspaper Libel

[RichardLee]

What is the name of your state? Kentucky
I am the defendant in a criminal lawsuit...charge is a 2nd degree misdemeanor. The local newspaper has seen fit to run this case in the newspaper at least 6 times with BOLD highlighted title text. The paper also has an on-line presence where readers can comment. The question I have is as follows: A staff reporter who has been covering this case knowingly sent out at least 1 e-mail...maybe more, that is completely false using the newspaper e-mail account. The e-mail is a total lie and says that I will have to register as a sex offender. I am wondering how many people received this e-mail and if I have a case for libel

 

[The Occultist]

Is he stating as fact that you will have to register? Or merely claiming that he believes it is going to happen? If the latter, there's not really a whole lot to be done.

 

[quincy]

A few questions, Richard, to add to the couple of questions The Occulist asked:

How have you been made aware of the staff reporter's email and its content? To whom was the one email, that you are aware of was sent, sent?

Will you have to register as a sex offender if convicted of the particular crime for which you are being tried? Was the comment about registering as a sex offender made as a response to a question asked, say, about the possible consequences to you if found guilty?

Has all newspaper coverage of your case been based on court hearings, police reports, and/or interviews with the principals in the case?



(I like your new signature, The Occulist! MUCH more appropriate! )

 

[RichardLee]

Quincy'
How have you been made aware of the staff reporter's email and its content? To whom was the one email, that you are aware of was sent, sent?...It was sent to an annonymous e-mail account that we use.

Will you have to register as a sex offender if convicted of the particular crime for which you are being tried? Was the comment about registering as a sex offender made as a response to a question asked, say, about the possible consequences to you if found guilty?...No, I will not have to register as a sex offender. No, the comment was not a response to a question

Has all newspaper coverage of your case been based on court hearings, police reports, and/or interviews with the principals in the case?...Yes

This is a copy of the e-mail. Nothing in it is factual:
"Hello, the man was employed to drive 14 yr old girl soccer players to the game idiot. You mean to tell me that if your daughter was on that bus you would have the same outlook. You don't like the story, don't read it, but don't tell me it isn't news. The man's gonna do 60 days in jail and be labled a sex offender for life. He was a school employee entrusted with the care custody and control of their students. Idiot.

Any advice you can give me would be geatly appreciated

 

[Zigner]

Looks like "opinion" to me...
Being "labeled" a sex offender isn't the same as saying you will have to "register" as a sex offender.

 

[quincy]

Richard -

I believe I know what you are being charged with, and which newspaper and which reporter is covering your criminal lawsuit. I have to say I am not fond of the way in which the story has been, and is being, covered. Words used like "allegedly", for instance, are tricky - and I, personally, would edit such comments out of any story before it made print. Plus, I am not fond of the online reader-response format, as many responses, under the guise of opinion, border on libel.

The one line in the email that states, "The man's gonna do 60 days in jail and be labeled a sex offender for life" indicates that the writer has already tried and convicted you. It is not opinion. He is stating fact. If you are found innocent of all charges brought, it becomes "false fact", and that sentence becomes libelous.

Here, however, is the problem with your situation right now. Any action against the writer must wait until your case is heard and a decision is made as to your guilt or innocence. If found guilty of the charges you face, it is true that you will probably have to register as a sex offender. And with truth there is no libel.

If found innocent, on the other hand, your reputation has been damaged by, not only the email, but by some of the writer's comments in his articles (and by some of the comments made by several of those responding to his article, as well). People in your community will have a hard time trusting you with their children, you will be at risk of losing your job, and you will have a hard time finding other employment - at least employment involving children.

I would speak with the attorney handling your criminal case, and indicate a desire to seek some recourse against this writer should you be found innocent on all charges. The attorney, if familiar with defamation actions, can guide you. He can tell you whether pursuing any action against the writer and/or reader-responders is worthwhile.

 

[Zigner]

...should you be found innocent on all charges.

And, tell us how often someone is found "innocent"

 

[quincy]

The defense seems to have some good arguments.

Unfortunately, even those found innocent of certain crimes are not always believed innocent in their communities. A defamation action alone cannot repair a damaged reputation if people choose to believe otherwise.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Not to be too nitpicky, but I think it's an important distinction that no one is ever "found innocent" but, rather, are found to have not been proven guilty.

 

[quincy]

Being "nitpicky" is good, Clt747.

I am using "found innocent" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary - as in found to be "free from guilt; free from legal fault" or found to be "free from guilt for a particular offense".

But, if I have been found to have been proven guilty of misusing "found innocent", I apologize. I don't use it often because everyone in the Detroit area is always found guilty.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Well, I'd hesitate before questioning any device of yours, Quincy. But my obsessive nature got the best of me.

 

[seniorjudge]

http://www.maysville-online.com/articles/2008/02/19/local_news/1588pipal.txt

 

[quincy]

Actually, in reviewing the use of "found innocent" in newspapers around the country, all of us use that phrase when evidence presented does not support guilt. I suppose it is more accurate to say, since everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that one is not "found" innocent but rather "found to be not guilty".

Out of curiousity, I am going to do a bit of research to see why journalists, generally sticklers for proper English usage, have adopted the "found innocent" phrase. It is a puzzler. It may, however, be nothing more than for clarity purposes for the readers, or an ease of use. "Found to be not guilty" is a bit unwieldy.

(and, yes seniorjudge, THAT is the one!)

 

[seniorjudge]

...

Out of curiousity, I am going to do a bit of research to see why journalists, generally sticklers for proper English usage, have adopted the "found innocent" phrase. It is a puzzler. It may, however, be nothing more than for clarity purposes for the readers, or an ease of use. "Found to be not guilty" is a bit unwieldy.

...

A newspaper editor once told me that it is too easy for the "not" in "not guilty" to be dropped in a story, which could cause lots of trouble for the newspaper.

So journalists prefer the inaccurate "innocent" to the correct "not guilty".

 

[quincy]

Whew. Thank you, S.J. You saved me the research!

And it certainly makes sense what the editor said. I can see libel suits galore if the "not" were dropped!