|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Baseless Claims Damage Reputations And Prove Ignorance All At Once | ||||||
| In the April 5 issue of the Daily Forty-Niner, my character was assassinated. For those of you who may not know, making libelous comments in a newspaper is a very serious offense and is extremely damaging to a person's reputation. The law protects the person who has been defamed (in this case, me) to the fullest extent of its reach, and cracks down hard on the perpetrator. Usually libelous comments do not make it into the final draft of a newspaper but sometimes out of freak occurrence or a lapse in judgment they get past editors. This was one of those times, and thanks to the law, I am allowed this opportunity to clear my name. | ||||||
| In a letter to the editor on April 5, I was categorized as a "racist" and asked to resign and apologize for uttering what was dubbed "hate speech" by the letter writer. | ||||||
| I did not use the term "wigger" in a racist way when describing rapper Eminem. According to The Source for Youth Ministry, which produces a legitimate teen slang dictionary, the term "wigga" is used to describe "A white person who thinks he is black." That was the sole context that it was used in and to deduce from that that I was making a "racist" statement or inciting "hate speech" is entirely inaccurate. | ||||||
| More importantly, I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "racist." It is amazing how misinformed some people are on the law. | ||||||
| The Student Press Law Center, a well-respected entity and staunch supporter of student rights, defines libel as "the publication - in words, photos, pictures or symbols - of false statements of fact that harm another's reputation." Furthermore, there are four elements that a person who feels they have been libeled must prove: publication, identification, harm, and fault (also known as the PIHF test). Clearly I was identified and the statement was published, so the first two elements were passed. Next, was the statement made, harmful? Yes. The Student Press Law Center, as well as any organization that knows the law, will acknowledge certain "red flag" items that could, on their very surface, be potentially libelous. "Statements that allege racial or religious bigotry," according to the Student Press Law Center, obviously applies in what was said about me. | ||||||
| Finally we come to the fault test, which encompasses whether or not the reporter (in this case the letter writer) "did everything a 'reasonable reporter' should have done to verify the information in his or her story before publishing it - for example, talked to all sides, obtained and read all relevant documents, took accurate notes, etc." I was never spoken to by this particular person, nor was any research done. Calling me a "racist" was completely baseless, as all this person knows about me is what I write in my articles, which are no doubt read by this individual every Tuesday. To say that this letter writer "talked to all sides, obtained and read all relevant documents, took accurate notes, etc.," would be a gross overstatement. | ||||||
| In a conversation with a student journalist regarding my being libeled, I was asked the following questions, which were not only asinine at their base, but they also prove my point about how uneducated people are about the law. "Have you had any negative reactions in your classes or on campus because of the article?" he asked, following it up by asking me if it has "hurt [my] reputation on campus." What these people don't seem to understand is that my reputation has, in fact, been damaged, and that could almost be considered worse than anything, as a reputation, once defamed, is a very hard thing to repair. To make matters worse, it is a known fact that readers read between the lines, and what is not there, isn't there. In other words, if there is nothing to shed doubt on the claim that I am a "racist," I must, in fact, be a "racist," right? | ||||||
| In a good faith effort on my part I contacted my accuser and gave the person ample time to retract and apologize for grossly and recklessly defaming my reputation but it was met with apparent disregard, as nothing was ever sent back in an effort to set the record straight and admit error. As a word to the wise, when writing columns and editorials as well as straight news stories, one must be extra careful about what one says in order to avoid any possible libel, as this is exactly the kind of thing that gets people sued. A great man once said, "A little knowledge is dangerous," and I think that is a very fitting phrase for this particular situation. In this case, a limited amount of knowledge led to a baseless and libelous character assassination. People have been sued and financially ruined for far smaller infractions, so next time, be a little more careful. | ||||||
| Copyright Gerry Wachovsky, 2005, and Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. | ||||||
| Back | ||||||