U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge R. Gary Klausner had tossed the case brought by the founder of the Crenshaw Christian Center based on a 2007 20/20 broadcast, finding the allegedly libelous statements by the defendants "substantially true." The offending clip of a sermon by television evangelist Price quoted him as saying: "I live in a 25-room mansion. I have my own $6 million yacht. I have my own private jet, and I have my own helicopter."
ABC subsequently issued an apology and retraction when it came to light that Price was sermonizing on the topic of greed about a hypothetical individual, who though financially healthy, was spiritually unfulfilled. As a matter of fact, Price certainly hasn't taken a personal vow of poverty, as he wears an $8,500 watch, drives a Rolls Royce, resides in an 8,000-square-foot home valued at $4.6 million, and travels in a jet owned by the Church, according to court records.
Nevertheless, writing for the appellate court, Judge Mary Schroeder reinstated the defamation claim, framing the underlying issue thusly: "Journalists and publishers risk a defamation action when they put words in a public figure's mouth...The issue in this case is whether there are similar risks when a network television program broadcasts a statement actually made by a public figure, but presents the statement in a misleading context, thereby changing the viewer's understanding of the speaker's words."
Judge Schroeder noted: "Where the published quotation contains a material alteration of the meaning conveyed by the speaker, the published quotation is false." She added: "Here, the context in which Price's words were presented materially changed the words' meaning."
Although Price refers to himself as a "prophet of prosperity," creating a wrong impression about an individual could harm his reputation and is actionable as defamation. It's possible that ABC's profile of the prophet could turn into a total loss for the network.
[...] and make Preacher Price even more financially comfortable.
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. He is a public figure, so there is the actual malice hurdle to overcome, not to mention the damages issue. Ruling might make counsel for Fox News a bit antsy over the Shirley Sherrod-threatened defamation suit (i.e., taking a snippet of video out of context). Also, there is that special place in Hell reserved for tv evangelists who engage in adultery and/or financial malfeasance that may be setting aside a corner room for the decidedly unpious prophet.
ReplyDelete