Posted 9/16/12
7:30 AM
Kelly /Warner ~ Internet Law and Defamation practice lawyers do a case study on The Cape Vincent Blogger defamation case
Tuesday, September 4th, 2012
A recently filed New York defamation lawsuit has a group of pro-wind farming advocates battling it out against two bloggers. The plaintiffs allege that the bloggers ruined their reputations; two claimants even aver that the bloggers cost them winning in the local elections. What caused the stir? If you believe the petitioners, their good names were disparaged thanks to the defendants’ accusations that the plaintiff pool attempted to prevent voters from exercising their right to cast a ballot.
The two main plaintiffs – Marty T. Mason and Donald J. Mason – are pro-wind development advocates. The two Masons claim the bloggers’ fodder cost them dearly in the town council elections. The other plaintiffs include Gary J. King, Harvey J. White, Paul C. Mason, Darrell and Marlene Burton and Frank J. Giaquinto. The two defendants are Richard C. Wiley, Sr. and Kathryn A. Hludzenski, authors of jeffersonleaningleft.blogspot.com and pandorasboxofrocks.blogspot.com, respectively. There are also plans to file for subpoenas so anonymous posters can also be added to the lawsuit as defendants.
Since Marty T. Mason and Donald J. Mason were running for public office, they’re considered “public figures.” In addition, since the statements under review dealt with an election, the subject matter will most likely be ruled a matter of public concern. As such, the plaintiffs will have to prove actual malice in order to emerge victorious in this lawsuit.
In the filing, several statements were cited as defamatory. link here to read a legal analysis of this case
8 comments:
looks like the plaintiffs are in over their heads.
The court should order the plaintiffs to pay all costs associated with this lawsuit. There should be consequences for misusing the legal system.
"it’s important to remember that the foundation of defamation law in the United States is clear: opinion is protected speech."
The winner here will be "protected speech".
The loser will be those who are countered because they they did not understand protected speech and may have been simply seeking retribution against those who dare speak out against a very contentious issue. Or those who invented an issue that did not have any basis for soliciting an opinion. Did the bloggers make up a false issue?
If it is about false claims of voter fraud or about passing an illegal voter law. That is big reason for community alarm and public activism. An illegal voter law is a violation of civil liberties of the entire community. It would seem that a petition that precipitated an illegal voter law would be subject to alarm.
Were all of the plaintiffs directly involved in public activities regarding wind development? Were they partners with agreements with developers? If so, that would certainly raise the level to which they could be criticized and their activities scrutinized. If they have claimed affiliation with organized groups and are in leadership role then those groups activities would be be disposed. It appears the plaintiffs have exposed many in the community to involvement.
Look for countersuits on this one. I believe it was meant to scare anyone who has an opinion on industrial wind development in the community.
The plaintiffs identify themselves as voters for wind and citizens for fair government.
False statements must be made by one person who intended to do harm to another and a third party must have encountered those statements. It is important to realize that winning a defamation suit is generally more difficult for a plaintiff than for a defendant. The plaintiff needs to prove that all of the elements of the offense existed. The defendant, on the other hand, can win by proving that a single element did not exist.
Dangerous territory. So they locate an anonymous blogger, which I doubt would be allowed in this case of opinion, and then find that what the commenter said is true? If the plaintiff is so determined that his/here reputation has been damaged. Don't they have to prove their reputation is damaged. And how do they prove loss of business. In fact, do some of the plaintiffs actually have a business? If not that would cause a counter. Why did their lawyer allow the complaint to be written in the was it did?
"The defendant, on the other hand, can win by proving that a single element did not exist."
Hey, in the case of that damn petition I know for a fact that people felt they were being misled to believe that some were voting twice and some were double dipping on STAR and cheating the town. I know of people who very very upset and sorry after being talked into signing it.
Does is make sense that these do-gooders were all of a sudden worried about what some person in Rochester or Syracuse was getting on their STAR.
Don't take this community for fools...Please...
This whole crappola is proof that they were trying to shut down public opinion.
They were writing and talking in public meetings about the blogs for crying out loud and were making false claims of them telling lies.
Things like this split the community all the more. The damage done to the community by the pro wind movement last fall prior to election is irreparable until the Cape Dem oligarchs bring us a town candidate we can trust to understand ethics and dangers of self interest.
This is a case about nothing. The Democrat Chairman, The Chairman of the Concerned Citizens and the Voters for Wind and a lease holding member of the board for years have been publicly calling your bloggers liars about their industrial wind news and reporting of government activity. There was public intimidation in public meetings against people who were speaking out on blogs. That is not normal town meeting business and is above and beyond their concern.
Now they are suing the Cape citizens because they fought back and stood up against their overly aggressive efforts and misinformation by the wind developer public relations blitz. The citizens had every right to free speech regarding the conflicts of interest, secret meeting, false claims of voter fraud and the illegal resolution. That was all bad stuff by the pro wind and should have been challenged vigorously.
But all and all the suit is huge waste of time over political rhetoric by a bunch of openly political characters.
However, there should be some legal counter regarding the petition activities, the illegal resolution and how it may have affected people who received assessor letters from the two political party chairman. The ACLU and voters groups might be very interested in that one. That kind of thing should never happen in America. It is dangerous to democracy and destroys the character of small towns.
Sounds to me they are trying to excusing and wipe the slate clean of their bad actions by suing the messengers and objectors.
This should be a big story and a lesson for all small towns who attempt to screw with a voting system so those with industrial wind conflicts of interest remain in public office so industrial wind get their way with the help of a company like Bp.
I bet I am not the only one who has this opinion just from the lithe I have read so far. Provided the events reported on your blog were not made up.
Good luck Cape Vincent.
Post a Comment