On being called a coward by Hasso Hering

...well, not directly. He does pull the old "some" canard, which should be a journalism no-no. Moreso he is going after LT and the idea of anonymous blogging in the first place.

Anyway, this editorial is getting old, but I've not really had a chance to think about it or weigh in, and I wanted to.

Hering:

The Lebanon dispute about a web log or blog is essentially about cowardice.

[recites some context about LT and Kim Fandiño]

This is the universal problem with the online universe. On some sites it is easy to post commentaries anonymously. You can say anything, true or not, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. [Italics added.]

FULL STOP.

Did Hasso really just ignore libel and slander laws, not to mention laws governing harassment, to make his point?

Yes he did.

Lies by intentional omission (because even I believe Hering knows what libel is) are still lies, and have no place in a newspaper.

The Internet thus becomes a perfect tool for weasels who like to slam other people but are too shy to tell the world who they are. They may be the same kind of people who throw stuff at bicyclists from a moving car, knowing that their victim cannot catch them. Figuratively, they are pleased to wound people while remaining safely out of sight.

Hasso calls them weasels. I call them the Founding Fathers. See, for example, Publius and the history of the Federalist Papers, which provided some much-needed context for the Constitution and were printed anonymously.

Notice how he also implies that it's somehow a crime if anonymous words wound someone - never mind the truth or falsity of said words. If Hasso can't look you in the eye, you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

Moving on:

At Lebanon’s school board meeting this week, a lawyer said he represented the blogger or bloggers in this case and was ready to defend his, her or their rights of free speech, or words to that effect. Wonderful! Let’s drag the noble First Amendment down to the level of the anonymous blogger, why don’t we!

Nobody doubts that citizens have the right of free speech, no matter what their opinions. But the principle of free speech implies responsibility too. Bloggers who refuse to bear responsibility may make people wonder whether free speech is such a good thing. (hh)

Har. See my point about the Federalist Papers. Also, Hering should do some - any - research on this topic; anonymous speech, including blogging, has significant protections under the First Amendment. For Hering to so openly mock this idea implies that (a) he has no clue as to the history of protected, anonymous free speech in America and (b) he's a fucking fascist idiot.

Also (c) that people say stupid shit all the time using their real name. Responsibility, which is definitely not the same thing as people knowing one's identity, is no guarantor of quality. Hering should know better than anyone.

Worse, (d): That Hering, a newspaper editor, doesn't believe all that strongly in free speech. His claims regarding responsibility are a poor cover for his manly anger at someone's refusal to...what? Duel with pistols at dawn? It would be comical if he weren't so serious.

"Coward?" "Weasel?" Really? I know I frequently use, um, sophomoric terms, but I'm a crappy blogger; he is a newspaper editor, and should leave the ad hominem attacks where they belong - which is not on the editorial page.

This is by far the worst editorial I have ever read by Hering. He is either forced to lie to make his point or is completely ignorant about a fundamental aspect of public speech in this country. Either is completely unacceptable for a newspaper editor; can SOMEONE over at Lee - be it at the DH, GT, or corporate - sit up and take notice?

Please?

What would it take?

A Brief on New York Times v. Sullivan

Someone sent this in, and I thought I'd post it. See here for why.

New York Times V. Sullivan
376U.S. 254
84 S.Ct. 710
11 L.Ed. 2d 686

Summary:

A paid advertisement was published in the New York Times that told about the mistreatment of black students in Montgomery, Ala. who were peacefully protesting segregation. The City commissioner of Montgomery, L.B. Sullivan, filed a lawsuit claiming libel in the circuit court. Along with the NY Times, four black students were named as defendants. The Jury awarded Mr. Sullivan $500,000 in damages against each defendant.

Constitutional questions:

What constitutes libel? Can this advertisement printed in the New York times be shown to cause damage to Mr. Sullivan? What limits does the constitution impose upon states power to award damages in libel action brought by public official against critics of his official conduct?

Ruling: Reversed, 9-0

Reasoning:

The evidence Mr. Sullivan presented, and was the basis for the state supreme court judgment, was found insufficient to impose a fine of any magnitude upon the defendants. The rule of law applied to this case by the Alabama courts does not provide safeguards for freedom of speech required by the first and fourteenth amendment in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his conduct.

The paragraphs of the advertisement in question that respondent claims damage his character refer only indirectly to him. One refers to police action against students, which he claims to be the personification of the police by virtue of his position as city commissioner. The other paragraph refers to arrests made of students protesting. Police make arrests, so once again Mr. Sullivan claims it is referring to him.

We find it necessary that the national debate on public issues should be open, uninhibited, robust “and may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

The present issue is without question covered by the constitutional protection for free expression. We also find it unnecessary to determine the falsity of any factual statements. There shall be no exceptions to the protections of free speech based on the truth of a statement. Error in open public debate is inevitable. It is most important that the burden of truth never be on the speaker.

A rule requiring a guarantee of truth in criticism or public debate would have the effect of self-censorship. Potential critics would be deterred by the risk of accidentally stating the wrong facts or other similar mishaps.

In order for a public official to recover damages as a result of false criticism they must prove the statement is made with “actual malice,” that is, with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. As for the defendants, we find their is insufficient evidence to show an “actual malice.” It was at most negligence on the part of the NY times. The lower court ruling is reversed and remanded.

Italics added.

More on Blogging, Lawsuits and School Districts

Via Slashdot, a story out of Texas that has some of the same components of Lebanon's ongoing learning experience - except, of course, that the person being sued is not anonymous and is a parent. From the Galveston Courier:

GALVESTON — The public school district has officially demanded that parent Sandra Tetley remove what it says is libelous material from her Web site or face a lawsuit for defamation.

Tetley received a letter Monday from the district’s law firm demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements and other “legally offensive” statements posted by her or anonymous users, and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter states.

...

One legal expert said the district’s move to sue Tetley is rare and unlawful. Under the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, government entities cannot sue for libel — any court would toss out the “threatening” suit as being inconsistent with U.S. law, said Sandra Baron, executive director of New-York based Media Law Resource Center. She called the district’s potential lawsuit an intimidation tactic and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Interesting.

More background can be found in another Galveston Courier story:

GALVESTON — An appeals court ruled in 2002 that school districts can’t sue for defamation, so Galveston school district may face some hurdles if it moves forward with its lawsuit.

In a case that Galveston school district’s attorney argued is different, Port Arthur’s public school district in 2001 tried to sue a blogger for defamation. The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit based on black-letter law: New York Times v. Sullivan clearly prohibits such lawsuits.

Someone should look up the New York Times v. Sullivan case. I'm too lazy.

Sandra Tetley's blog.