Judge: Abourezk can sue Web site

Associated Press - Rapid City Journal ^ | March 21, 2004 | AP Staff

[Condor51]

SIOUX FALLS — A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by former U.S. Sen. James Abourezk can continue against an Internet site that put Abourezk on a "traitor's list" for criticizing President Bush.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol denied a motion on Wednesday from ProBush.com to dismiss Abourezk's lawsuit. Abourezk, who was a Democratic U.S. senator from 1973 to 1979, accused the site of libel.

Abourezk sued last year after his name and photograph showed up on the list along with those of several others, including actress Susan Sarandon, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

[AmishDude]

If they can get some publicity out of it, they'll try to link this all to Pres. Bush somehow. Like the attacks on McCain in SC.

The thing is that this website is nothing. They cannot seriously assert that anyone would think that people would say, "Senator Whatzizname? Wasn't he convicted for treason? I saw him on a website with Susan Sarandon."

[adam_az]

After all, Democrats never call anyone traitors, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x2322

Bush is a spoiled rich boy who, like the notorious traitor and whore Ann Coulter, is too much of a coward to avenge America's dead of 9/11."

never mind all these results

Google search for "site:democraticunderground.com bush traitor"

Ironic that the Rats seem to regularly accuse the Bush admin of being "dictatorial," isn't it? I hope the suit fails. Very scary to the concept of free speech and political criticism.

[gitmo]

How quaint!

[dennisw]

As I understand it (not a lawyer), for the action to
succeed, given that the plaintff is a public figure,
he has to prove that the statement is false, that the
author knew it was false, and that it was posted with
intentional malice.

But meanwhile James Abourzek does his own lawyering and his ADC may be well funded enough (perhaps partly from abroad???) to help out financially in his case agonist free speech. His strategy might not necessarily be to win but to fire a warning shot by inflicting maximum financial pain on the poor boob who owns that website. The government often does to this so why can't a citizen?

[adam_az]

"This is a SLAPP suit, intended to either force a retraction or put a small website out of business. Not much different from the same sort of suit the WP/LAT pursued against FR."

Don't fall for the BS from the anti-SLAPPers who want to pass legislation to limit such suits. The way all these laws are written is to prevent a company from suing busybodies whose tactics include lying and slandering. It presumes the "neigborhood activist" or whomever is innocent, that the claim is true, and that the chance a company might sue someone who isn't slandering to get them to shut up is enough to prevent companies from defending themselves when actually slandered. And we know leftists and other assorted watermelons would never do that.... right?

[Boundless]

> I say we do a fact finding mission and then file
> lawsuits on the thousands of websites that contain
> libel against George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

If the discourse at DU ever suddenly becomes civil, we'll
know that someone's getting clean hands before suing FR :-)
Not likely.

But libel suits against BB posters have happened, and I
suspect a few have succeeded. It behooves all those who
speak publically to know where the edge of the envelope
is, and avoid it.

Libel is easily avoided, for example, instead of:
"Senator XYZZY is a traitor",
say:
"Treason is defined as ..."
"Senator XYZZY has done/said the following ..."

[mhking]

Please post entire article when not covered by known exclusions:

SIOUX FALLS (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed by former U.S. Sen. James Abourezk can continue against an Internet site that put Abourezk on a "traitor's list" for criticizing President Bush.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol denied a motion on Wednesday from ProBush.com to dismiss Abourezk's lawsuit. Abourezk, who was a Democratic U.S. senator from 1973 to 1979, accused the site of libel.

Abourezk sued last year after his name and photograph showed up on the list along with those of several others, including actress Susan Sarandon, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Abourezk, who is seeking $2 million in actual damages, $3 million in punitive damages and a retraction, has been critical of the war in Iraq.

He was also part of a four-person delegation that traveled to Syria and Iraq in 2002.

In an interview last May, Abourezk's lawyer, Todd Epp, said the Web site can criticize the former senator's views but does not have the right to call him a traitor to his country.

ProBush.com said in court documents that the First Amendment protects political statements such as those that appear on the Web site.

On the Net:

ProBush.com: www.probush.com

[dpwiener]

Oh, the ADC is a lovely website. First, they have decided to take on the juggernaut of Merriam-Webster over their definition of anti-Semitism.

Actually I agree with the ADC regarding their argument with Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster's definition of "anti-Semitism" is:

1) hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination (2) opposition to Zionism (3) sympathy for the opponents of Israel.

The ADC properly argues that meanings (2) and (3) are inaccurate and ought to be corrected.

[AmishDude]

I won't argue your essential point (I'm probably more sympathetic to it than not), but they've given it more attention than the NYT gave Martha Burke.

• They probably picked something that they can argue about that doesn't make them look too much like a wacko fringe Islamofacist group.
• Why would the ADC (a so-called anti-discrimination group focused on Arabs) care so much about the definition of anti-Semitism? Could it be, perhaps, oh never mind . . .
• It's one freakin' dictionary. At some point it doesn't merit too much of your time.

[RippleFire]

bump

[mrsmith]

Google has about 90,000 hits for Bush and traitor,
hmmm... but only about 50,000 for Clinton and traitor.

The internet must be broke again.

[anonymous_user]

Without opening myself up to a lawsuit *ahem* I'll just say that this decision is nothing more than blatant, South Dakota fatcat Democrat cronyism. If this were Republicans pulling anything 1/100th this transparent, it would be front-page news for months.

I hope the Web site owner can appeal. He has a snowballs chance in hell of any justice in that venue.

[Rebelbase]

Google has about 90,000 hits for Bush and traitor,
hmmm... but only about 50,000 for Clinton and traitor.

You have to take into consideration that internet use has increased exponentially since the beginning of the Clinton era.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"You have to take into consideration that internet use has increased since the beginning of the Clinton era."

Didn't use spell check, huh?Doesn't Everyone know by now that should be spelled the Clinton "error"?

[tubavil]

A-R-A-B

[Bonaparte]

If the suit has no merit or is malicious, you're likely to win and, at minimum, collect your legal expenses. If the judge makes a bad call adverse to you, then he's either incompetent or doesn't like you -- in which case you have to either eat it or appeal. If the suit is sound, then you will more than likely lose. That's all fine with me and, while I do want tort reform, I don't support those bills designed to hobble righteous litigation.

[GeronL]

Isn't this guy a freeper?

[TheWriterInTexas]

That bottom pick of the WTC always freaks me (they are all upsetting and gut wrenching, but this one particularly so). That lady holding her diapered baby out the window simply breaks my heart all over again.

As upsetting as it may be, thank you for posting it. We need to remember, always, what we are up against.

[jwalburg]

Uh, that little clause was supposed to apply to everything EXCEPT political speech evidently.

[jwalburg]

That's what I was thinking. The Dems will surely fall hardest if harsh political rhetoric is allowed to stand as "slander."