Learned Hand
Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 17 2014,22:27) |
Barry is always affable. He pioneered SLAP suits against political rivals, suing one opponent for $10,000 for calling him a bully. As the article says, this "...had an immediate chilling effect on Arrington's foes." It also earned him an instant nickname.
Nobody reading UD will be surprised. |
"Well-spoken and full of righteous indignation about the state of the world, he utters opinions with the confidence of someone who just knows the truth. Arrington's zeal strikes his critics as smug self-righteousness, but it's intoxicating to many other evangelical Christians."
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Some people overvalue certainty.
He gets a bad rap on the defamation case, though. If you google the names of the parties, you can read an appellate opinion: http://www.cobar.org/opinion....urtid=1 (NB, I don't know if that's the final appeal or if it went to a higher court.)
BA didn't sue on the theory that his political rivals called him a bully. He claimed that they sent out postcards saying that "in the past [Arrington] bullied and physically threatened those who disagreed with him" (emphasis original).
I loathe libel suits. If BA had sued just on the bully language, that would be risible. Claiming that he "physically threatened" someone is different. It's a specific statement that, if false, could definitely be considered defamatory. The court concludes it could be defamation per se, a particularly serious kind of defamation that, in practical terms, ups the damages. I don't know if I agree with that, but it's a reasonable conclusion.
I've only ever been involved in one actual defamation case, and was just a junior associate on the trial team at that, but I've advised several clients on potential defamation claims. I think this claim would have a very good chance of getting past an anti-SLAPP action.
He lost at this level of the court because apparently the postcards made it clear in context that the statements were political hyperbole, and "should not be taken at face value or viewed as a statement of fact." Without seeing the cards, or knowing anything about the precedent being applied, I don't have an opinion on that. One of the three judges disagreed.
None of this has to do with whether the underlying claims are true. BA lost at the law stage, before anyone had a chance to contest the underlying facts. If he'd won at the law stage, eventually the defendants might have argued that the statement was true and therefore not defamatory. No idea whether there's any fact to the allegations.
I made a similar point a while back. Frankly BA gets a bad rap for this. But he spent all his sympathy points when he made petty and absurd threats towards a poster here and at TSZ. Sorry, I forget who that was--whoever it was that BA advised to retain counsel. That was too pathetic to be actual bullying, but not for lack of trying.
|
