Slashdot Mirror
School District Threatens Suit Over Parent's Blog
penguin_dance writes "A Texas School District is threatening to sue a parent over what it terms 'libelous material' or other 'legally offensive' postings on her web site and are demanding their removal. Web site owner Sandra Tetley says they're just opinions. The legal firm sending the demand cited 16 items, half posted by Tetley, the rest by anonymous commentators to her blog. The alleged libelous postings 'accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for "personal gain," violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.' The problem for the district is that previous courts have ruled that governments can't sue for libel. So now, in a follow-up story, the lawyers say the firm 'would file a suit on behalf of administrators in their official capacities and individual board members. The suit, however, would be funded from the district's budget.' So far, Tetley hasn't backed down, although she said she'll 'consult with her attorneys before deciding what, if anything, to delete.'"
Since it's not linked in the op, the site in question is http://www.gisdwatch.com/
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
And can the government sue even if he does?
War for Oil.
Bush Lied, Thousands Died.
That Shambling Ape in the White House.
Chimpy McHaliburton.
Ok, I'm convinced. That lady should be sued by the government for libel.
As should the above traitorous fools.
I say: Kryten250 did, at some unspecified time and place, suck a donkey's balls.
You then sue me. That makes you the plaintiff. Can you prove that you didn't, ever, suck donkey balls?
At the bottom of the
I don't have to prove I didn't but I still have a burden of proof.
In a libel action, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of libel:
The statement has been made to a third party.
The statement referred to the plaintiff. (This does not mean that the statement has to refer expressly to the plaintiff. A statement can be actionable if it is reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff).
The statement must be defamatory, which means that it must be a false statement to the plaintiff's discredit.
FlyingPizzas.com, for the tasteful hermit
Just because its a blog doesnt it make any less real than posting it as leaflets on lampposts.
If the accusations are true, than they will lose.
If they arent, they have every right to defend themselves against this libel.
That's not entirely true. There's a defence to libel called "honest opinion", which basically means that the statements made are clearly intended to be interpreted as opinion rather than absolute statements of fact. This does, in fact, mean that blogs (a medium that is commonly used for distributing opinions) are harder to show libel in than pamphlets (which are usually intended to be interpreted as fact).
This blog, with article titles like "FASCIST STATE RISING!!" and "More Work for Erik the Destroyer!" is clearly dealing in opinion.
IANAL; this is not legal advice; etc.
Timer to hire a lawyer.
I don't know much about Australian law, but I suspect that if the local press is not somehow denied access to the site, merely threatening to sue them anyway even if you don't have a case will likely garner you enough press time to embarrass them a lot more than the website.
They may allow you back in or to retake the test in simple self defense. You will likely be seeing some hardball. The accusations on your site can be enough to keep an elected official out of office or get a superintendent fired. Again consult the lawyer first, but pointing out that it will get into the local news may cause a really amazing effect.
Also don't assume that t6hey are necessarily telling you the truth about what is defamatory and what is not. A lot of that stuff is opinion and not thier opinion to boot.
that would be Podophilia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podophilia
Until a week ago I thought that truth was an absolute defence to libel. Not always so. Although the law differs by jurisdiction, what you say may have to be in the public interest. If a politician sleeps around with married people and then tries to outlaw adultery, that's in the public interest to report; if your neighbour sleeps around with married people, that's not in the public interest (unless the married person or that person's spouse is a public figure). People are entitled to their privacy, and if the public would not care about Joe Blow and you defame his character, you're going to get in trouble.
Also, on the jurisdictional issue, this site lists a few places where truth is not an absolute defence (including "some US states"). And you should note that if you publish something online, then since people can read it in jurisdictions where truth is not an absolute defence, you may be able to be sued in those jurisdictions, even if you and the person you're talking about have never been to that jurisdiction. And lastly, the burden of truth (not just belief in truth of the statements, but actual truth) is on the person making the statements.
I am unfamiliar with the term Pederast (this is, in fact, the first time I have heard it), and hence looked it up on wikipedia, and it doesn't seem to mean what you think it does. From the first paragraph of the article: "Pederasty or paederasty (literally 'boy-love', see Etymology below) refers to an intimate or erotic relationship between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. It has found expression from earliest times through a variety of customs and practices within different cultures." Considering that the children were female (teenage girls), and that the "creepy teacher" was male, Pederast is certainly not the correct word to use, unless you want to argue with wikipedia (which I would understand, as wikipedia is often ... inaccurate, I suppose one could say, or not a perfect source).
A better term to use might be Ephebophilia or Lolita Complex, as both of those refer to an attraction to adolescents, and one of those might be the term that you were thinking of -- but it is certainly not Pederast.
Everything is subjective.
SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
Basically, when someone sues just to shut you up/intimidate you, KNOWING they are going to lose if it goes to court. The school district using deep pockets to prevent her from publishing a blocg about a public entity (protected speach) basically would fall under this.
Many states now have anti-SLAPP laws - allows the person being sued to counter sue
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
This happened recently, where the anonymous blogger "orthomom" got sued by a School Board member for saying nasty things about her. The suit was thrown out of court. Some details are available here.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!