Hello everyone.  A recent post questioned the wisdom and legality of posting
Grant's photo on the Internet to keep him from getting another ferret.  Yet,
the U.S.  Supreme Court has explicitly protected our freedom to do such
things.
 
Quick disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (although I start law school in August),
so I don't claim any more authority than what I have learned as an
undergraduate student and editor of my school's student newspaper.  Also, in
the interests of space and readibility, I am glossing over some of the
details of the law.  People can E-mail me if they want greater detail.
 
That aside, I can say with good confidence that simply posting Grant's photo
with the NJ ferret story on the Internet will not constitute libel.
(Slander only applies to spoken words.) The First Amendment clearly protects
the dissemination of true information, and there is nothing that Grant can
do about that (thankfully).
 
In order to prove libel, Grant would have to show 1.) that the words exposed
him to defamation, or "hatred, ridicule or contempt"(1); 2.) that the
defamation wa directed at him; 3.) that the defamation was published; 4.)
that the defamation was published as a result of recklessness; 5.) that the
statement was false; and 6.) that the statement caused loss of reputation,
emotional distress or the loss of business revenues.  I'm sure that Grant
could show 1,2,3 and *maybe* 6.  But without published lies, he cannot prove
4 or 5.  (2)
 
Yet, interestingly enough, one could unwittingly write lies about Grant, and
he would still not have legal recourse.  The reason: Grant has become a
"public figure." With all the attention focused on the case, including the
newscasts I've read about on the FML, Grant has placed himself in the
spotlight.  In fact, the Supreme Court has defined "public official" as any
persons of widespread fame or notoriety or people who have injected
themselves into the debate about a controversial public issue for the
purpose of affecting the outcome.(3) Seems to me that our NJ man fits both
definitions to a "T".  So, in order to prove libel, Grant would have to show
"actual malice," or a reckless disregard for the truth -- that is, knowingly
lying.
 
I don't think tose wanting to post his mug on the Internet would knowingly
lie about him, but this point of law actually provides those posting the mug
even greater legal protections.
 
Incidentally, I think that the person writing the post urging caution was
from Canada.  (Anglo)Canadian legal tradition is more apt to protect
"privacy" than that of the U.S.  Therefore, the person's concern was
justified, yet not applicable to the U.S.  Also, he or she urged a look at
state laws on the matter.  In the U.S., First Amendment questions are the
sole jurisdiction of the federal government.  Any state laws running
contrary to the above information would undoubtedly be found
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
 
The moral of this story is that it would be fully legal to slap the
butcher's mug on the Internet and try to keep him from getting another
beloved fuzzie.
 
Markos and Zoe (my trusty research assistant)
 
p.s. The Supreme Court, by the way, has also protected our right to call
Grant a "butcher" or "idiot" or any other form of "exaggerated rhetoric"
or unprovable assertion (4). Isn't this country great???
 
References:
 
(1) Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 559 (1977)
(2) This list is compiled from several Supreme Court cases. Anyone
    wishing a more complete list can E-mail me at [log in to unmask]
(3) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.(1974) 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41
    L.Ed.2d 789
(4) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) 497 U.S., 497 110 S.Ct. 2695
 
**** my easy E-mail is: [log in to unmask] *****
[Posted in FML issue 1611]