A Minnesota weblog libel case is brewing that may have national implications for purveyors of new media. Michael Brodkorb writing anonymously on his weblog, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, cited an unnamed source claiming that local public relations firm New School Communications had become publicly critical of Coleen Rowley’s congressional campaign after Rowley rejected a contract with the PR firm.
New School’s law suit claims that the source “may, in fact, be a fabrication” and that new media should be held to the same journalistic standards as traditional media. Brodkorb—former research director for the Minnesota Republican Party—says his source deserves protection, probably under the state’s shield law (scroll down to the section on Minnesota).
According to both the Minneapolis StarTribune and Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Rowley’s campaign maintains that the PR firm did submit a fundraising proposal but that it was subsequently rejected. New School insists that no such proposal was ever submitted to the campaign. As to the accuracy of Brodkorb’s claim that New School Communications was publicly critical of Rowley’s campaign, Brodkorb’s website cites a 27 October 2005 Associated Press report quoting New School Communications president Blois Olson:
“We’re still early here, but I think among Democrats it’s fair to say they’re disappointed that the campaign hasn’t created more momentum. ... I think there’s some naivete about the process. ... She needs to develop some discipline in how she talks, and what she talks about.”
Assuming the quotes are accurate, a reasonable person would probably find Olson’s statements to be “publicly critical.”
What’s more, Brodkorb published Blois Olson’s denial, so I don’t see the basis for the law suit.
The law suit is of questionable merit. Last year, the Delaware Supreme Court found that the redress for offending speech on a weblog is simply a rebuttal. This approach was argued most eloquently by Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis in their 1925 dissenting opinion in Gitlow v. New York.
“It is said that the manifesto [by Gitlow] was more than a theory, that it was an incitement. Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result…. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be said of the redundant [Gitlow] discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.”
Gitlow had been convicted of distributing material calling for “revolutionary mass actoin” to replace the government of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. For more, see “Limts to free speech.”
The question is whether or not bloggers and their weblogs should be held to the same accountability standards as journalists and newspapers. The answer is “probably so” but that’s not how the courts have been seeing it. If weblogs are not held to the same accountability standards then neither should the privileges accorded publishers—including the shield protection—be granted. These issues need to be decided, but this is a very poor test case.
Update: Friday 06 January 2006 11:30AM CST: Blois Olson, president of New School Communications, has published his Minnesota Democrats Exposed, cited an unnamed source claiming that local public relations firm New School Communications had become publicly critical of Coleen Rowley’s congressional campaign after Rowley rejected a contract with the PR firm.
New School’s law suit claims that the source “may, in fact, be a fabrication” and that new media should be held to the same journalistic standards as traditional media. Brodkorb—former research director for the Minnesota Republican Party—says his source deserves protection, probably under the state’s shield law (scroll down to the section on Minnesota).
According to both the Minneapolis StarTribune and Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Rowley’s campaign maintains that the PR firm did submit a fundraising proposal but that it was subsequently rejected. New School insists that no such proposal was ever submitted to the campaign. As to the accuracy of Brodkorb’s claim that New School Communications was publicly critical of Rowley’s campaign, Brodkorb’s website cites a 27 October 2005 Associated Press report quoting New School Communications president Blois Olson:
“We’re still early here, but I think among Democrats it’s fair to say they’re disappointed that the campaign hasn’t created more momentum. ... I think there’s some naivete about the process. ... She needs to develop some discipline in how she talks, and what she talks about.”
Assuming the quotes are accurate, a reasonable person would probably find Olson’s statements to be “publicly critical.”
What’s more, Brodkorb published Blois Olson’s denial, so I don’t see the basis for the law suit.
The law suit is of questionable merit. Last year, the Delaware Supreme Court found that the redress for offending speech on a weblog is simply a rebuttal. This approach was argued most eloquently by Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis in their 1925 dissenting opinion in Gitlow v. New York.
“It is said that the manifesto [by Gitlow] was more than a theory, that it was an incitement. Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result…. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be said of the redundant [Gitlow] discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.”
Gitlow had been convicted of distributing material calling for “revolutionary mass actoin” to replace the government of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. For more, see “Limts to free speech.”
The question is whether or not bloggers and their weblogs should be held to the same accountability standards as journalists and newspapers. The answer is “probably so” but that’s not how the courts have been seeing it. If weblogs are not held to the same accountability standards then neither should the privileges accorded publishers—including the shield protection—be granted. These issues need to be decided, but this is a very poor test case.
Update: Friday 06 January 2006 11:30AM CST: Blois Olson, president of New School Communications, has published his rebuttal to the Brodkorb article and the rationale for his law suit on his weblog.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.