file photo by Boyd Loving of Matt Rogers and Roberta Sonenfeld
July 29,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Reader say Criticism of Village of Ridgewood Attorney met with a cheap attempt at censorship and silencing the public through intimidation.
We have seen this before :
“Commenters on this thread need to bone up on libel law. Castigating a practicing attorney must be done with a degree of care that is greater than when one is pummeling a non-professional. If a lie is uttered that forms the basis of an overall message, explicit or implicit, that the attorney in question is unfit for the practice of law, a judge or jury is empowered to declare that libel has occurred. And not just ordinary libel, with respect to which financial damages must be proven to the penny, but libel per se, in which damages are presumed.”
A reader responds , “That’s right James. Not only is Rogers a public figure because he works in a municipal council but TRUTH is always a defense to any threat of ‘libel’. I think that July 28, 2016 at 6:21 pm anonymous message may have been written by Rogers himself (or someone astroturfing on his behalf.) It’s just another cheap attempt at censorship and silencing the public through intimidation. They’re low enough to do such things. The bottom-line is that rogers is a bum period! “
Since we heard this during the recent Village election campaign we thought we would clear the air .
The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:
a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” A “particularized determination” is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted:[2]
A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established…
A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]… Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children] werefair comments… within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
Proving Fault: Actual Malice and Negligence
Unlike other countries that hold a publisher liable for every defamatory statement regardless of what steps he or she took prior to publication, under U.S. law a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was at fault when she published the defamatory statement. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher failed to do something she was required to do. Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff will either need to prove that the defendant acted negligently, if the plaintiff is a private figure, or with actual malice, if the plaintiff is a public figure or official.
Celebrities, politicians, high-ranking or powerful government officials, and others with power in society are generally considered public figures/officials and are required to prove actual malice. Unlike these well-known and powerful individuals, your shy neighbor is likely to be a private figure who is only required to prove negligence if you publish something defamatory about her. Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on clinical research involving autism may be considered a public figure for purposes of controversies involving autism, but not for other purposes. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence.
