I thought this chapter about defamation and libel defined and distinguished many important facets of this category of speech. Before the reading, I thought these labels were largely interchangeable, so it was interesting to read about their historical development and how the medium in which said material was published made a difference in how the court used to assess it. However, I believe a recent case involving a libel lawsuit makes an important present-day connection to how both district and supreme courts view libel in a modern context - in this case, the potential relationship between gender identity and defamation.
On June 20th, 2016, the National Enquirer ran a story involving Richard Simmons, a fitness guru and actor who retreated from the public eye about two years prior. The National Enquirer, a tabloid publication notorious for its disregard of factual reporting, published a story claiming Simmons was keeping a low profile because he was undergoing gender reassignment surgery and transitioning from a man to a woman. This was a baseless and false claim, and in May of 2017 Simmons sued the National Enquirer for libel. Under the definition provided by our textbook, this case would fall under Libel per quod, meaning Simmons would be required to provide "supporting information and context to show that the message is harmful to reputation." (Pg. 108) What's also worth noting is that Simmons defended transgender rights while moving this lawsuit forward; however, he believed the article was published with the intent to "humiliate and embarrass" him for allegedly being transgender.
On September 5th, 2017, however, the case was tossed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court for an interesting reason: the judge, Gregory Keosian, ruled that it's simply not defamatory or libelous to call someone transgender. With his ruling, Keosian effectively legally elevated someone's gender identity to the level of sexual orientation or race - none of which are inherently defamatory. He explains, “This court finds that because courts have long held that a misidentification of certain immutable characteristics do not naturally tend to injure one’s reputation, even if there is a sizable portion of the population who hold prejudices against those characteristics, misidentification of a person as transgender is not actionable defamation absent special damages.” This decision is the first of its kind, and if it's upheld by the Court of Appeal, it may turn out to be one of the most significant cases in favor of transgender rights in the present day.
Sources:
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2017.
Wydeven, Reg. “Defamation Cases Present Issues for Justice System.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Sept. 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/16/defamation-cases-present-issues-justice-system/669549001/.
On June 20th, 2016, the National Enquirer ran a story involving Richard Simmons, a fitness guru and actor who retreated from the public eye about two years prior. The National Enquirer, a tabloid publication notorious for its disregard of factual reporting, published a story claiming Simmons was keeping a low profile because he was undergoing gender reassignment surgery and transitioning from a man to a woman. This was a baseless and false claim, and in May of 2017 Simmons sued the National Enquirer for libel. Under the definition provided by our textbook, this case would fall under Libel per quod, meaning Simmons would be required to provide "supporting information and context to show that the message is harmful to reputation." (Pg. 108) What's also worth noting is that Simmons defended transgender rights while moving this lawsuit forward; however, he believed the article was published with the intent to "humiliate and embarrass" him for allegedly being transgender.
On September 5th, 2017, however, the case was tossed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court for an interesting reason: the judge, Gregory Keosian, ruled that it's simply not defamatory or libelous to call someone transgender. With his ruling, Keosian effectively legally elevated someone's gender identity to the level of sexual orientation or race - none of which are inherently defamatory. He explains, “This court finds that because courts have long held that a misidentification of certain immutable characteristics do not naturally tend to injure one’s reputation, even if there is a sizable portion of the population who hold prejudices against those characteristics, misidentification of a person as transgender is not actionable defamation absent special damages.” This decision is the first of its kind, and if it's upheld by the Court of Appeal, it may turn out to be one of the most significant cases in favor of transgender rights in the present day.
Sources:
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata
Publishing, Inc., 2017.
Wydeven, Reg. “Defamation Cases Present Issues for Justice System.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Sept. 2017, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/16/defamation-cases-present-issues-justice-system/669549001/.
What really attracted my attention in this post and what I felt needed a comment was exactly what we talked about in class involving context. Ever since I was a kid I've always stopped and looked at the National Enquirer when I'm waiting in line at the grocery store because I find it to be amusing. I personally wouldn't classify simply calling someone transgender as defamatory, especially when published in the National Enquirer and I would argue the context supports that. That tabloid is usually is so ridiculous that I find it hard to believe that anyone would hold any stock in the publication and because of that understand why it would be so challenging for Simmons to be able to prove defamation. I do agree with you though that this is a huge step for transgender rights and elevating the status of sexual identity to the same as sexual orientation or race will do a significant amount.
ReplyDelete