Personal Injury Law

Defamation suit by law professor against those accuse him of being a racist - Weak arguments often times require labeling the opposition.

By Steve Lombardi

Words can have a powerful and often times unintended impact on the person to whom they are directed. In the case of the accuser labeling the opposition, often times the accuser hasn't thought through the consequences of doing a shout out. The ABA Journal reports in Law News Now that a law professor has sued students, saying they defamed him by calling him a racist.

"The suit by Richard Peltz says he took part in a legitimate debate on affirmative action at the invitation of the Black Law Students Association, the New York Times reports. The two student defendants, Valerie Nation and Chrishuana Clark, are 3Ls.

Besides the students, the suit names the local chapter of the student association, an association of black lawyers called the W. Harold Flowers Law Society in Little Rock, and the law society's president, Eric Buchanan."

These students are learning the hard way about the law of defamation. In some sense I feel badly for them but in another sense more of this can be expected.  It seems that our current culture makes us believe labeling of any kind is acceptable.  Current events should make you think twice about shouting out a label that temporary wins the argument but may libel someone.

All too often lately we've seen those involved in a political debate be quick to label the opposition. The last Presidential debates labeled anyone opposing the sitting Administration's re-election bid as traitors for signaling our "enemies".  Mugabe from Zimbabwe labels his detractors as traitors. And then there was the label for those who oppose the War in Iraq as "Un-American". The latest political race between Obama and Clinton indulges in more of the same. Obama supporters are quick to accuse those opponents that engage in political claims that he is too inexperienced or who dare to apply racial demographics as racists. Watching and listening to this we can become lulled into thinking labels are a way to get what we want by neutralizing the opposition. But labels have a way of disparaging a person and once a label is attached a person's profession can inexplicably be harmed. One recent example is Imus.

The damage to ones livelihood from being categorized can be a real dollars and cents issue.

"Don Imus, the nationally syndicated shock jock who called members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed ho's," was suspended for two weeks Monday by his employers, CBS Radio and MSNBC. But a growing chorus of civil rights leaders and media critics argue that suspension is not sufficient and that Imus should be permanently removed from his chair. "

Of course Imus did it to himself by making remarks, which although encouraged by the terms of his employment contract, were nonetheless offensive to many people.

"Imus, whose radio show is heard locally on KVON 1440 AM, based in Napa, and is simulcast on the MSNBC cable network, is renowned for making racist, sexist and generally tasteless remarks. He unleashed a fury last week when, while watching highlights from the women's NCAA championship game, Imus and his studio cohorts riffed on the women's appearance, comparing them to tattooed, male players. "

Labeling the opposition as traitors isn't anything new. It dates back to at least 1864 and during the Civil War years.

 HARPER'S WEEKLY.

SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 20, 1864.

CONSTITUTIONAL OPPOSITION.

THERE are several members of Congress who please themselves by asserting that they constitute a healthy constitutional opposition to the Government, and who insist that it is wrong to call them unpatriotic, merely because they do not approve the method and policy of the Administration in conducting the war. They protest that the Administration is not the Government, and that they may censure all its acts without being justly liable to be called traitors.

Opponents to the Mexican-American War of 1846 were also labeled as traitors.

"I have no doubt that every one of those individuals who on the rostrum or in the public press have so furiously been preaching war to the death;, branding as "traitors" anyone who even says one word about a truce, is at heart convinced of our absolute helplessness, not only to carry on the war successfully but even to continue fighting in the face of defeat.... no one speaks of anything but war, and as the height of contradiction, it is obvious that not one of these advocates of war shows the slightest inclination to shoulder a musket or to put his money into the public treasury."

There are cases involving large damage awards as well as criminal defamation charges being brought.  That's right some states consider some forms of defamation to be criminal in nature. It's always better to lose the argument then to defame someone.  And winning isn't always everything it's cracked up to be.  You can win the court battle only to lose the war for respect. There are reported instances of winning in Court only to lose your job for post verdict conduct.

"In 2005, Massachusetts state court judge Ernest Murphy won a $2.1 million libel verdict against the Boston Herald for a series criticizing his alleged lenient sentencing practices. Murphy sued over stories quoting "several courthouse sources" that allegedly heard Murphy say a teenage rape victim should "get over it." Here's the story, from the NLJ.

But after the original verdict, the Herald's publisher, Patrick Purcell, received two letters from Murphy, written on the court's letterhead, demanding payment of $3.26 million and telling Purcell that the Herald had little chance of winning on appeal. Murphy's first letter warned Purcell that it would be a "mistake. In fact, a BIG mistake" to show the letter to anyone except "the gentleman whose authorized signature will be affixed to the check in question." Murphy's second letter said Purcell had "ZERO" chance of winning an appeal.

The Herald wound up paying Murphy $3.4 million including interest after Murphy won an appeal in May 2007.

Still, as it turns out, the sending of the letters just might catch up with Judge Murphy. The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a $25,000 fine, a 30-day suspension without pay and a public censure for Judge Murphy for sending the letters. The commission made its recommendations to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which makes final rulings on judicial disciplinary cases.

The commission concluded that Murphy's conduct was willful and that he attempted to both intimidate Purcell and persuade the Herald to pay him more than the courts had awarded him at that point in the case. "

So a word to the wise. Be not fooled by the current culture, because history is simply repeating itself. Someone who opposes a certain point of view is not a traitor or a racist - not even in times of war or Presidential elections. Before loosely throwing disparaging labels around you might consider reworking the factual part of your premise and if you can't win without attaching a label to your opponent, then your argument is one you should probably lose.  We all know that it's not logical to label all Americans who oppose the wars as un-American, traitors and those who oppose Obama for President as racists. We know that law school professors who take to arguing a particular point of view are not necessarily racist.  It's all part of the litigation experience that we are taught in law school.

Full post as published by Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer on May 02, 2008 (boomark / email).