Posted on 08/02/2011 8:41:18 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
In a case that could test the bounds of free speech, a former Democratic congressman has been allowed to proceed with his lawsuit against a prominent pro-life group that he claims contributed to his election defeat by spreading falsehoods about his record on abortion issues.
A federal judge in Ohio ruled Monday that former Rep. Steve Driehaus' defamation suit against the Susan B. Anthony List can go forward. The former Ohio congressman claims the group "disseminated lies" about him, effectively costing him his job -- as well as inflicting "reputational" and "economic" harm.
The complaint stems from statements and advertisements claiming Driehaus, who considers himself a pro-life lawmaker, voted for taxpayer-funded abortion when he backed the federal health care overhaul.
But the case raises apparent free-speech concerns, considering politicians frequently endure fierce and sustained criticism from multiple groups in the heat of a campaign and, from time to time, lose because of that criticism. Even the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed a brief on a related, but separate, case last fall arguing that "the people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials."
Emily Buchanan, director of the Susan B. Anthony List, said the case could have a chilling effect on speech.
"The claim of defamation is outrageous. Driehaus is a public official, and we should be able to criticize him," she told FoxNews.com. "And all of this debate should be taking place in the public square. A court or a judge should not be determining" a dispute over abortion policy.
However, the ex-congressman claims he's going after the pro-life group because, according to him, they crossed the line and lied.
"The First Amendment is not and never has been an invitation to concoct falsehoods aimed at depriving a person of his livelihood," his original complaint said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Susan B. Anthony List is a reputable organization. It’s possible that they made some small factual error, but it’s extremely unlikely that they lied about this guy.
And as a public figure he is open to criticism as a matter of free speech. It is VERY difficult to convict someone for libeling a public figure, even if they blatantly lie—which leftists do all the time. But I have received mailings from SBAL for many years, and I have never seen anything like that.
So the Tea Party ought to sue Biden for defamation with him calling the Tea Party terrorists? Oops, I forgot, rules and laws do not apply to RATS!
Don’t knock it...the judge opened the door to do just that! Tea Partiers ought to take notice! (However, the law seems to immunize sitting public officials)
SBA was doubtless correct when they spoke of the net effect of his vote, plus his responsibility to have known better. I very much doubt they ever accused him of “wanting to kill babies” or such.
In the meantime, I wonder if he weeps all the way to the bank as a lobbyist.
And I'm not talking about Governor Mitt either.
Since when is an elected position your "job and economic livelihood," and better yet, since when is it YOUR JOB????
One of the many things that’s annoying about this story is that being a congresscritter is enough of a financial benefit to be worth suing over. If anything, being able to go back to private citizenship should be a bit of a relief.
Last thing we want is for these bastards to get too comfortable — financially or otherwise — in DC.
Nothing surprising here:
Southern District of Ohio
Black, Timothy Seymour
Born 1953 in Brookline, MA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Nominated by Barack Obama on December 24, 2009, to a seat vacated by Sandra S. Beckwith; Confirmed by the Senate on May 11, 2010, and received commission on May 13, 2010.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 2004-2010
Education:
Harvard University, A.B., 1975
Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University, J.D., 1983
Professional Career:
Faculty, Roxbury Latin School, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, 1975-1977
Faculty, The Seven Hills Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978-1982
Private practice, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1982-1993
Judge, Hamilton County Municipal Court, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1994-2004
If this prevails, even someones published voting record may not be able to be used against them. If this was another Judge other than an Obama appointed, the First amendment and election free speech might have a chance. But with him probably calling Holder at DOJ to find out how to rule makes it less likely to end well. Unless of course the defendant happens to be one of Holder’s people, then all bets are off.
Where’s that ad that said “If you vote Republican, black churches will burn” or that “When George W. Bush vetoed that hate crime law, it was like lynching my child all over again.”
I’d bet $1000 that whatever was said in that pro-life was probably more true than those two hit jobs.
A Party member was ousted. The people at fault must be made to pay.
How can he say it isn't true? The bill provides for taxpayer funding of abortions. He voted for it. He supports taxpayer funded abortions. QED. If he wins this one it is truly an abrogation of the First Amendment.
I do this work, this politician got outed and they tend to be sue happy when they get outed.
Complete and utter scum.
I hope Susan B Anthony has integrity and hold the line.
Its an abrogation of the age of reason.
Nothing in the First Amendment says that political speach needs to be true.
All it says is exactly the opposite of what this Dem and Dem judge are trying to do - limit or punish political speach.
Speech.
“Elected office as a livelihood. There’s so much wrong with this lawsuit it’s hard to know where to begin.”
If they do get away with this and it becomes fair game everywhere we will be able to put democrats in the poor house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.