Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wrote this before the other thread was closed --
> hence the references to Brown -- but it still
> expresses my thought on the defamation of
> individuals and groups through fiction. It can be
> and is done, and the consequences can, I think, be
> rather nasty.
>
>
> Let me for a moment take a different example. As
> many of you may know, the CC has been involved in
> a scandal here in Boston (and elsewhere) dealing
> with its protection of pedophile priests and its
> failure to protect children from potential and
> actual molestation.

This is an unfortunate fact.


***
Depends on your perspective (no, I'm not wishing harm on children).


> But assume for a moment that it were not a fact,
> that some journalist or novelist accused the
> archdiocese of moving and shielding pedophiles
> when the archdiocese had not done so, or accused
> innocent priests of child molestation, while
> claiming that many aspects of the false story were
> in fact “true,” thus bringing the archdiocese into
> disrepute and causing a major setback in
> fundraising necessary to further the charitable
> purpose of the church.

***
Depends. If said journalist found ONE priest who admitted to pedophile while in his position AS priest, that's enough for his claim to be true. That's the beauty. Truth is an absolute defense against defaming/libel/slander. You'll note Brown interviewed 5 Opus Dei members. I think it was 3-pro, 2-con. Likely for just that reason.


(That this would happen is
> not hypothetical, as I the wake of the factual
> scandal, the CC has seen a major falling of in
> contributions.)

***
Quite surprising.


I have no doubt whatsoever that
> in such a situation the CC could sue the
> journalist or novelist and would have a pretty
> good shot at winning.

***
I would argue in court:

Your honor, an institution that has never, ever done any misdeeds is obviously held in high regard by the populace. As well, they ARE the moral guardians of life for 1/6 of the world's inhabitants. Thus, I don't see how anyone would say what reporter X said could have ANY affect on their reputation. Again, if funding has dropped off just after the reporter made the false claim, that's another story.


This is isn’t a First
> Amendment question, by the way; you’re allowed to
> say or write almost anything you damned well
> please, but you also have to be ready to accept
> the consequences.
>
> From what I’ve said, I hope it’s obvious that I
> disagree with Jim’s stance. People are
> responsible for what they write. Those who write
> something false, claim that it is true, and cause
> damage should be required to make restitution.

***
But the ethics rub is that it's a fiction book. Even in interviews, I haven't heard Brown say the OD or murder or Gardiner stuff is fact; he just believes it.


I
> have not read Brown’s book, as I do not generally
> read fiction, I have no take on whether the book
> is in fact harmful, but if what Brown claims is
> true is in fact a pack of lies and someone’s hurt,
> I say sue the man.

***
That then opens the door for anyone to sue any fictional author. Your honor, he's making ALL Polish peole out to be bad people. Your honor, he's making ALL people from Philadelphia out to be bad people.


I also say that if Brown
> said something like ’OD exists and I have used the
> organization as a basis for a purely fictional
> account that is not meant to suggest that OD has
> condoned (or committed) murder,’ the case becomes
> more difficult – even if that is what Brown meant
> to suggest.

***
I think fiction IMPLIES that stance.

JL

>
> Lee
>




Shephard of Hermas - 2[79]:2 Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it; but the gate seemed to me to have been hewed out quite recently. And the gate glistened beyond the brightness of the sun, so that I marvelled at the brightness of the gate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2005 01:33PM by lobo-hotei.