radio—how far is too far?

[bouvlee]

What is the name of your state? California

I recently wrote an e-mail to a radio station's morning show stating my negative opinion regarding their most recent commentary. Other people wrote in similar opinions.

They read my e-mail out loud on the radio(ok), stating my full name(didn't read anyone else's full name), and went on to call me a "little b_t_h" (female dog), wished horrible health problems on me, a horrible life, that they hated me, etc, etc. (not to anyone else withh same opinion).

I understand the whole "shock jock" thing, but have they crossed a line? Does this constitute slander? If any of my clients or possible clients heard this, I don't know if it would effect my working relationships negatively.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[cbg]

You stated your opinion of them; they stated their opinion of you. Why is one okay but not the other? Why do you have more rights than they do?

Even if there were the seeds of a slander suit in here, which there aren't, you couldn't sue on the basis of, well, maybe if my clients heard this it might hurt me. You'd have to demonstrate actual damages that were directly tied to this event.

In other words, you have nothing.

 

[monkeysaint]

You stated your opinion of them; they stated their opinion of you. Why is one okay but not the other? Why do you have more rights than they do?

By virtue of their roles as on-air personalities, they are public figures, while bouvlee does not seem to qualify as such.
Therefore, different standards apply to each of them.
Clardy v. Cowles Publishing, 81 Wn. App 53; 912 P.2d 1078 (1996)
"Person becomes “public figure” for purposes of First Amendment only if he voluntarily draws attention to himself or uses his position in controversy as fulcrum to create public discussion and must thrust himself into vortex of public issue and engage public’s attention in attempt to influence its outcome in order to be so considered."

Since bouvlee is a private figure, she would not need to prove actual malice.

If I am misunderstanding the case law, let me know.

 

[JETX]

If I am misunderstanding the case law, let me know.

You are misunderstanding the law... case or not.
They are entitled to their OPINION, just as anyone else is. Simple fact... based on the OP's post, it is VERY unlikely of defamation.
However, if the OP wants to spend about $10,000 and two years or so of her life pursuing it (and making it even MORE public), go for it.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? California

I recently wrote an e-mail to a radio station's morning show stating my negative opinion regarding their most recent commentary. Other people wrote in similar opinions.

They read my e-mail out loud on the radio(ok), stating my full name(didn't read anyone else's full name), and went on to call me a "little b_t_h" (female dog), wished horrible health problems on me, a horrible life, that they hated me, etc, etc. (not to anyone else withh same opinion).

I understand the whole "shock jock" thing, but have they crossed a line? Does this constitute slander? If any of my clients or possible clients heard this, I don't know if it would effect my working relationships negatively.

Thanks for the advice.

The jock's name wasn't Jerry Falwell was it?

 

[moburkes]

If any of my clients or possible clients heard this, I don't know if it would effect my working relationships negatively.

Thanks for the advice.

If your clients heard WHAT? The letter that you wrote? Or their responses to the letter that you wrote?

 

[tranquility]

Case law is most useful when the court has jurisdiction over the parties. I didn't look up the cite, but don't think it is from a California court or the 9th circut so it would be persuasive at best. Besides, while determining if a person is a public figure can be an issue in defamation suits, I don't see it here. (By the way, could you argue the OP is a public figure from the case?)

As others have posted, the radio show has the right to an opinion. If that opinion makes someone look silly, so be it. That's what the first amendment is about, putting ideas into the marketplace so everyone can look at them and decide. Sure, we often look to the right to say something, but often want it to end there. For the right to "work", others must be free to respond with their own opinion. We don't have the freedom to unanswered opinion. (Please see all the other topics on the forum for proof.)

I remember being an editor of the paper in college. I did an opinion article on a show that, while good, was not quite the extravaganza promised. The paper received a letter to me in disagreement with the column. As the editor, I printed the letter in the "letters to the editor" portion of the paper. The lady was livid. She claimed the letter was personal to me and threated to sue. She was a college employee and I got called into the dean of students. Then I got called into the president's office. It was a big fiasco.

Then I got back to the paper, wrote up what happened and made fun of the lady, the dean of students and the president. America--what a country!