UPDATE: Love Twibel Case Slated for January Trial

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson last week denied a summary judgment motion by attorneys for Courtney Love, clearing the way for her to become the first celebrity to go through a twibel trial for her alleged defamatory statements against her former attorney, The Hollywood Reporter reported last week.

The 49-year-old Love, actress, chanteuse for Hole, widow of Nirvana front man Kurt Cobain, gossip column fodder and overall train wreck, was sued by attorney Rhonda Holmes, whose firm, Holmes & Gordon, represented Love in a 2008 fraud claim against Cobain's Estate, until Love terminated her (see "TUOL" post 5/27/11). The alleged defamatory tweet by Love: "I was f------ devestated [sic] when Rhonda J. Holmes esq. of San Diego was bought off @FairNewsSpears perhaps you can get a quote."

Judge Johnson rejected Love's attorneys' argument that the allegedly offensive statement constituted Internet rhetorical hyperbole/opinion and was incapable of a defamatory meaning. Likewise, Judge Johnson said defendant's claim that the statement did not identify the plaintiff law firm by name, an essential element of a defamation count, was an issue to be decided by a jury.

The plaintiff will have to satisfy the actual malice standard to sustain its twibel claim; in other words, that Love knew her accusation that the plaintiff firm was bribed was false or that she made the alleged claim with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

According to newspaper accounts, Love allegedly agreed to settle the suit for $600,000 and publish a retraction, but did not follow through. The case is set for trial January 13, 2014, barring a settlement.

Jury Gives Warhol Portrait of Fawcett to O'Neal

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After a three-week trial, a Los Angeles jury voted 9-3 to award an Andy Warhol portrait of the late actress Farrah Fawcett to her decades-long companion, actor Ryan O'Neal, rather than her alma mater, the University of Texas, the Associated Press reported.

After Fawcett, who gained stardom in tv's Charlie's Angels, died of anal cancer in 2009, her estate bequeathed her art collection to the Univ. of Texas. O'Neal, who became a star in the '60s tv version of Peyton Place and whose personal life has been a soap opera ever since, removed from Fawcett's condo one of two 1980 Warhol portraits of the actress with the permission of her estate's trustee that O'Neal claimed was gifted to him by the painter for setting up the portrait session with Fawcett.

The jury sided with O'Neal, despite evidence from the university, including a loan agreement signed by Fawcett to the Warhol Museum that listed her as the owner of both portraits. The contested painting's value was assessed during the trial as ranging from $800,000 to $12 million, according to the AP article.

Earlier this year, a California appellate court allowed O'Neal's defamation suit to proceed against producer Craig Nevius who allegedly accused O'Neal of filching the portrait (see "TUOL" post 2/15/13).

UPDATE: DC Appeals Court Upholds Dumping Birther's Defamation Suit Against Esquire

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week in Farah et al. v. Esquire Magazine (Case No. 12-7055) upheld a lower court decision granting summary judgment to Esquire Magazine in a defamation suit brought by the author and publisher of a book questioning the U.S. citizenship of President Barack Obama.

Writing for the appellate court, Judge Judith W. Rogers said a post by Esquire that offended publisher Joseph Farah and author Jerome Corsi was protected political satire. Reasonable readers of the defendant's Politics Blog would not take the article as factual, the court ruled.

"Satire," Judge Rogers wrote, "is effective as social commentary precisely because it is often grounded in truth." United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Rosemary Collyer last year dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit, finding they had failed to state a claim (see "TUOL" post 6/7/12).

The appellate court ruling did not reach the question of the viability of Esquire's anti-SLAPP defense.

Toronto Life Faces Libel Suit from Public University

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Media lawyers are watching with interest as Canada's third-largest university, York University, has served a libel notice on Toronto Life magazine and award-winning writer Katherine Laidlaw, the Toronto Star (thestar.com) reported last month.

Laidlaw's Fortress York article in Toronto Life's October issue allegedly portrays the public research university's campus as a "hunting ground" for sexual predators, according to the Star article. Although Laidlaw's piece cites the school's bolstering its security force and installing emergency telephones campus-wide in response to a series of sexual assaults, the article purportedly claims that York's female students remain fearful concerning campus security.

University President Mamdouh Shoukri blasted the Toronto Life article for presenting a distorted view of campus safety. York sent libel notices to the magazine and Laidlaw last month, a pre-requisite to filing a libel action. The Star article quotes media lawyers and academics who question whether a public institution, such as York, may be a plaintiff in a defamation suit, noting that government entities, such as municipalities, cannot be.

Over the past couple of years, two higher education institutions, Indiana-based Butler University, and Thomas Cooley Law School in Michigan (see "TUOL" posts 4/10/13 & 12/14/12) have sued for libel, but both are privately funded. Not that anyone has asked the occasionally academic staff of "TUOL," but unfettered communication and free thought are supposed to thrive in university settings, so  large public institutions going after journalists seems, at the very least, impolite for Canadians.

UPDATE: Second Re-Tweeter Pays Up in Lord McAlpine's U.K. Libel Case

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

British comic Alan Davies is the latest social mediaite to learn the cost of the dark side of retweeting; in this case, 15,000 pounds ($23,976), according to accounts in The Guardian and the iMediaEthics.org media watchdog Web site.

Davies's resolution with Lord McAlpine follows the settlement last month with retweeter Sally Bercow, the spouse of the U.K. House of Commons Speaker. As reported here (see "TUOL" post 11/26/12), the retired British pol Alistair McAlpine, 71, one-time Conservative Party treasurer and confidant of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, settled a libel suit for roughly a combined $500,000 with the BBC and ITV last November.

Steve Messham, who alleged he was molested as a child, purportedly identified his alleged abuser in a photo whom police incorrectly said was McAlpine. Messham later apologized for the misidentification, but the BBC Newsnight program reported an unnamed North Wales politician was accused of pedophilia and the Twittersphere soon was active with posts suggesting that McAlpine was the abuser.

Davies, whom The Guardian reported has more than 400,000 Twitter followers, last year queried who the "Tory paedophile" was and retweeted a response identifying McAlpine. He was sued for libel by McAlpine despite promptly apologizing on Twitter for his posts. Bercow's 56,000 Tweeter followers allegedly received a post from her asking: "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*." McAlpine reportedly donated the settlement from Davies to the Royal Chelsea Hospital, according to The Guardian article.

The U.K. does not have the protection that likely would be accorded retweeters in the U.S. by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information contact provider."

Woman Files Libel Claim Against CJR, J-Prof. for Update of 46-Year-Old 'False' Newsweek Article

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A woman has filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging defamation and invasion of privacy claims against Columbia Journalism Review, a retired Newsweek editor and Columbia Graduate School of Journalism professor and a film documentarian based on a Nov./Dec. 2012, CJR article that updated a 46-year-old Newsweek article that she also claimed was defamatory.

In Margaret Won v. Columbia Journalism Review et al. (Case No. 1:13-cv-07723), the plaintiff claims in her complaint that Bruce Porter, 74, published a follow-up article entitled Lost and Found last year in CJR that portrayed her as a former drug user who slept on park benches and underwent an illegal abortion back in 1967. That year, Porter authored an article in Newsweek, Gentle Marcy: A Shattering Tale, that Won alleges defamed her by inaccurately portraying her as an underage runaway who abused drugs and engaged in casual sex that led to the abortion. In her complaint, Won contends she was 19, not a 17-year-old minor, when the original article was written, and she accused Porter of betraying a promise of confidentiality by revealing her first name and hometown in the Newsweek piece.

As reported by the Law360.com Lexis/Nexis co.-owned Web site and Courthouse News Service, Won alleges the CJR follow-up piece includes the full names of her deceased parents and first names of her siblings, along with a photograph of her and Porter outside her Michigan home to which she didn't consent.

Won's complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages against CJR, Porter and filmmaker Daniel Loewenthal. The defendants did not comment in either the Law360 or CNS accounts of the case.

Mass. Judge Won't Toss Internet Defamation Claim Against Florida Man

Keller Williams Realty (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Taylor et al v. Taylor et al, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Peter B. Krupp allowed an Internet defamation suit brought by Massachusetts realtors against a Florida defendant to go forward, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

The plaintiffs, realtors for Keller Williams Realty, allege they were defamed by their Florida-based soon-to-be former daughter in law, who they claim made anti-Semitic posts and accused them of engaging in real estate scams and withholding commissions.

The Florida resident sought to dismiss the Massachusetts suit brought by the plaintiffs on the ground that the Bay State was an improper forum to hear the case, but Judge Krupp disagreed, the Lawyers Weekly article reported. Judge Krupp noted in a brief opinion that the plaintiffs were Mass. residents and that the offending statements were meant to cause harm in Mass. and were made by someone familiar with the plaintiffs' business in Mass.

What It Means to Lose a Libel Case

 (Photo credit: Al Jazeera English)

The ramifications of bringing an unsuccessful defamation suit hit home this week for Yasser Abbas as counsel for the media defendant are asking the court for more than $200,000, according to the blog of the Legal Times (Legaltimes.typepad.com).

Abbas is appealing the trial court's dismissal of his defamation claim against Foreign Policy magazine regarding a June 2012, article. Abbas is the son of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Meanwhile, Williams & Connolly wants $100,481 in attorneys' fees and counsel for the article's author, Jonathan Schanzer, is seeking $107, 174 for his successful defense, according to Legal Times.

Accidental Model Sues Photo Agency

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A 25-year-old Brooklyn woman last week sued Getty Images photo agency and plans to go after the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR") as well regarding a photo of her that appeared in an amNew York ad, according to accounts in The New York Post and New York Daily News.

The photo at issue of Ireland native Avril Nolan, who works in public relations, allegedly appeared two years ago in an online fashion spread. The image by photographer, Jena Cumbo, whom the Daily News article said knows Nolan in passing, wound up in the stable of Getty Images, which sold it to DHR. From there, Nolan's visage wound up in an ad that appeared in the April 3 edition of amNew York, only it was accompanied by the message: "I am positive (+) [and] I have rights."

Problem is that Nolan is not HIV positive and did not sign a release with Cumbo or Getty Images or otherwise give her permission for the photo to be used, according to Nolan's attorney, who is quoted in the Daily News article. That's bad news for Getty, which has been sued for $450,000 in Manhattan Supreme Court by Nolan, and soon will be a headache for DHR, which Nolan's attorney said will be sued for defamation and civil rights violations for creating the impression that Nolan is an HIV victim.

Bloggers and photo editors everywhere are involuntarily shivering a bit. It's serious business when a person depicted in an image taken out of context is cast in a false light.

UPDATE: 2nd Circ. Sides with Spitzer & Slate in Insurance Broker Libel Claim

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Elliot Spitzer, former N.Y. Governor, Attorney General and ersatz CNN talk show host, may not have fared well in his recent attempt to re-enter the public sector as New York City Comptroller, but at least he won't be on the short-end of a defamation suit brought by a former Marsh & McClennan executive thanks to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A five-page Summary Order decision by a three-judge appellate panel consisting of Justices Denny Chin, John M. Walker and Debra Ann Livingston upheld a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that Spitzer and E-zine Slate did not defame William Gilman, former executive marketing director for Marsh & McClennan, in an Aug. 22, 2010 Slate column (see "TUOL" post 8/23/11).

In 2005, Marsh paid $850 million to settle a civil suit brought by the State of New York eight months before Gilman and seven other Marsh execs were indicted on kickback charges and other misdeeds. An editorial in The Wall St. Journal blasted Spitzer for his prosecution, to which he responded with the allegedly defamatory Slate column entitled They Still Don't Get It in which he defended his pursuit of corporate malfeasance by Marsh and the American Insurance Group, Inc.

Gilman's 2008 felony antitrust violation conviction was overturned and subsequently the case against him was dismissed. He then filed a $60 million libel claim against the defendants over statements in the Slate column, including that the critical WSJ editorial "fail[ed] to note the many employees of Marsh who have been convicted and sentenced to jail terms" and "Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks."

The trial court ruled against Gilman on his defamation suit and in Gilman v. Spitzer et al. (Case No. 12-cv-4169), the appellate panel agreed that the allegedly offensive statements were too broad and did not harm Gilman's reputation. The Second Circuit noted that by virtue of charges against him being dismissed, Gilman was not harmed by the Slate column reference to Marsh top brass "convicted and sentenced to jail terms" because he was excluded from that group, and that general references to "Marsh and its employees" could not be construed to be about Gilman personally.

For individuals to prevail in so-called group libel claims, the group has to be small enough that the false statement at issue harms the reputation of each of the group's members (hence, one can't defame the U.S. Army), and the allegedly defamatory statement must particularly target the plaintiff. In this instance, Gilman was not identified by name in Spitzer's Slate piece.

Ill. Lawyer Not Nonplussed by Bad Google + Review; Sues for Defamation

 "NewsRadio 780 and 105.9FM" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A disgruntled man who posted a negative review of the attorney and law firm that represented his former spouse in the couple's divorce proceedings is the target of a defamation suit by his ex's attorney, according to reports by the Naperville (Ill.) Patch Web site and WBBM newsradio.

Naperville attorney Paul Nordini and his firm are plaintiffs in the suit against Joseph LaBarre that seeks a $110,000 judgment and an injunction ordering LaBarre's allegedly offensive comments stricken from Google +.  The plaintiffs contend they were defamed by LaBarre's review that cites Nordini's alleged "underhanded and deceitful" manner and refers to Nordini's law firm as "ethically shaky" in its representation of LaBarre's former spouse.

Nordini did not respond to media inquiries regarding the suit, in which he claims LarBarre's harsh review is costing him and his firm $10,000 a month in lost potential business. False statements attacking the reputation of a professional, such as an attorney or doctor, are libelous per se, but Nordini faces an uphill battle. LaBarre's purported comments smack of opinion, which carries First Amendment protection against defamation claims, and Nordini will find little solace in this blog's posts that have reported in recent months on unsuccessful attempts by lawyers and dentists to respond to unflattering  Web site reviews by racing to court (See "TUOL" posts 9/3/13, 4/24/13, 2/11/13). From personal domestic relations practice experience, the staff of "TUOL" would add that disgruntled divorce party is an oxymoron.

Pakistani Party Threatens New York Times With Libel Suit

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Former New York Times Pakistan Bureau Chief Declan Walsh and the Gray Lady herself  face a $10 million defamation suit from Pakistan's Muttahida Qaumi Movement party for allegedly sullying the reputation of the faction's leader-in-exile Altaf Hussain, the India Times reported this week.

The party demanded the Times and Walsh apologize for "baseless reporting" about Hussain, who has lived in London since an unsuccessful attempt on his life in Pakistan in 1992. Walsh was expelled from Pakistan in May of this year after the interim government accused him of engaging in "undesirable activities," according to the India Times article.

The article did not include a reaction from Times officials to the defamation claim. The paper may take solace in the SPEECH Act (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) [Pub. L. 111-223), which President Obama signed into law in 2010 (See TUOL" post 8/11/10). The measure prevents the enforcement of foreign libel judgments in U.S. courts if they run counter to protections afforded by the First Amendment.

TripAdvisor Gets Away from Libel Suit

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Seaton v. TripAdvisor, LLC (Case No. 12-6122), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a defamation suit brought against popular travel site TripAdvisor by a Great Smoky Mountains vacation resort over the site branding the unfortunate facility the "dirtiest hotel in America."

The Seaton-operated Grand Resort alleged that the defendant's survey two years ago used a faulty rating system and irreparably harmed the facility's reputation by placing it at the top of the list of "2011 Dirtiest Hotels." The district court found against the vacation retreat and refused to allow the plaintiff to amend its defamation complaint by adding counts alleging tortious interference with business and trade libel.

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision in a 15-page opinion. The Sixth Circuit concluded that "TripAdvisor's use of 'dirtiest' amounts to rhetorical hyperbole [and] the general tenor of the '2011 Dirtiest Hotels ' list undermines any impression that TripAdvisor was seriously maintaining that Grand Resort is, in fact, the dirtiest hotel in America. For these reasons, TripAdvisor's placement of Grand Resort on the '2011 Dirtiest Hotels' list constitutes nonactionable opinion."

Oregon Judge 'SLAPPs" Lawyer; Let's Out a Yelp

Image via CrunchBase

In Daniel Bernath v. Tabitha J. & Yelp, Inc. (Case No. 1305-06167), Multnomah County (Ore.) Circuit Court Judge Henry Kantor last week granted Internet Service Provider Yelp!'s Motion to Strike a defamation lawsuit brought by an attorney irate over a client's negative review of his legal services.

A Eugene, Oregon, resident identified as Tabitha J. was sued by Bernath after her negative Yelp! post. Judge Kantor, noting that the review involved a matter of public interest, ruled that Yelp! was shielded from liability both by Oregon's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute [ORS 31.150] and Sec. 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act.

Dentists, realtors and restaurateurs stung by negative Yelp! postings are among those who have sought recourse in court (See, e.g., "TUOL" posts 4/24/13 & 2/11/13), usually, unsuccessfully because of the CDA protection accorded ISPs in Sec. 230(c): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Tip of the hat to (blogericgoldman.org) Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Blog for following the case.

No 'Air Jordan' to Help, 7th Cir. Slam Dunks Scottie Pippen's Libel Suit

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit this week upheld the trial court's dismissal of former Chicago Bulls great Scottie Pippen's defamation suit against several broadcasting and Internet defendants who allegedly erroneously reported he had filed for bankruptcy.

In the nine-page ruling in Pippen v. NBC Universal Media LLC et al (Case No. 12-3294), Judge Frank Easterbrook said the Basketball Hall of Fame Forward had failed to satisfy the elevated burden of proof of actual malice that public figures must meet in defamation claims, which means showing that the media defendants published the purportedly false statements knowing they were untrue or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.

The 48-year-old Pippen filed suit in 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illionis (see "TUOL" post 12/29/11) alleging that the defendants falsely reported that he had sustained $120 million in financial losses and had filed for bankruptcy, which he claimed cost him fees from endorsements and personal appearances.

"Since Pippen's opportunities diminished after the statements were made," Judge Easterbrook wrote, "he believes they must have diminished because the statements were made. This theory of causation is weak for professional athletes, whose earnings related to past stardom drop as time passes since their playing days."

Judge Easterbrook's opinion also rejected Pippen's argument that the defendants were liable for not correcting the false information about his financial well-being in online accounts. "[E]xcluding the Internet from the single publication rule would eviscerate the statute of limitations and expose online publishers to potentially limitless liability," Judge Easterbrook concluded.

Under the single publication rule, subsequent circulation of an allegedly libelous story does not create fresh claims of defamation; rather, the claim for relief for defamation is complete when the initial publication occurs. Evidently, Pippen's  court appearances require Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson to be successful.

Tip of the hat to THR, Esq. Web site for its full-court press on this story.

Federal Judge Blots Out Noted Art Authenticator's Libel Suit

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a 51-page ruling in Biro v. Conde Nast et al. (Case No. 11-civ.-4442), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge J. Paul Oetken tossed a defamation claim brought by a forensic art expert arising from an unflattering 2010 article in The New Yorker.

David Grann, author of the article, The Mark of a Masterpiece: The man who keeps finding famous fingerprints on uncelebrated works of art, was sued for defamation by Canadian art authenticator Peter Paul Biro, as was The New Yorker's publisher, Conde Nast, and in subsequent amended complaints, Gawker Media, Business Insider, among others. The 16,000-word article casts a suspicious eye on Biro's methodology that matched fingerprints on artwork to the artists who painted the pieces.

Oetken, who according to accounts by Courthouse News Service and The New York Times, has been widely published in scientific journals and often lectures at universities, was deemed a limited public figure by the Court. Judge Oetken ruled Biro failed to meet the elevated burden of proof of actual malice in his defamation claim or show that Grann fabricated quotes or relied on "wholly unverified or patently unreliable sources" in preparing The Mark of a Masterpiece.

In granting the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Oetken found: "There is little question that a reader may walk away from the article with a negative impression of Biro, but that impression would be largely the result of statements of fact that Biro does not allege to be false."  Attorneys for the plaintiff plan to appeal the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Zimmerman Rekindles Defamation Suit Against NBC

Image via CrunchBase

Just under two weeks since a 6-member jury acquitted him of all charges in the shooting death of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman is ready to head back to a courtroom to restart his dormant defamation suit against NBC, the iMediaEthics.org Web site reported.

The case, Zimmerman v. NBC Universal Media LLC et al. (Case No. 2012CA006178), filed in Seminole County Circuit Court last December (see "TUOL" post 12/7/12), which alleges defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, was stayed last February per a motion by NBC pending the outcome of the criminal case against Zimmerman.

The suit concerns an edited tape of a 911 call placed by Zimmerman that aired on the Today show in March 2012, that the plaintiff alleges depicts him as racist. NBC apologized in April 2012,  for the edits made to the taped call and dismissed staffers involved in airing the story, including a reporter and producer who also are defendants in the suit.

Zimmerman is likely to have to prove actual malice to prevail in his suit, as the high-profile murder trial elevates him to the status of, at least, a limited public figure.

http://www.imediaethics.org/News/4056/George_zimmerman_moves_to_restart_libel_lawsuit_against_nbc_over_edited_911_tape.php 

NY Judge: Google Must ID Anonymous Blogger

Image via CrunchBase

New York Supreme Court Justice Debra A. James has ordered Google, Inc. to disclose the identity of an anonymous blogger whose two Web sites allegedly defame a Manhattan-based consumer lawyer.

As reported by the Wall St. Journal Law Blog (blogs.wsj.com), in a Stipulated Order in Fredrick Schulman v. Google, Inc. et al. (Case No. 155629/2013), Justice James ruled the plaintiff had demonstrated a potential cause of action against the creator of the sites fredrickschulmancrookedattorney.com and stopfredrickschulman.blogspot.com and was entitled to pre-action discovery identifying the blogger under CPLR sec. 3012(c).

Schulman alleges he has suffered harm to his reputation and pecuniary loss because of the "malicious" online campaign against him.  Google was ordered to notify the unnamed blogger and alert him/her that he/she may challenge the efforts to disclose his/her identity.  The court discontinued the plaintiff's action as to Google.

'Pranked' TV Station Faces Defamation Suit from Asiana Airlines

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Still reeling from the July 6 crash-landing of its Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport that killed three and injured 180, Asiana Airlines is in no mood for puerile racist humor, and will file a defamation suit against the "pranked" Oakland TV news station that aired an erroneous story about the disaster, according to reports by CNN and the Associated Press.

KTVU-TV anchor Tori Campbell promptly apologized on-air after the station named and displayed a graphic identifying the pilots of the ill-fated Korean flight with the bogus names of Wi Tu Lo, Ho Li Fuk, Sum Ting Wong and Bang Ding Ow. The station, a CNN affiliate, said a National Safety Transportation Board official, who later proved to be an unidentified summer intern, confirmed the accuracy of the offensive names before the station ran the information. The NTSB has also issued an apology.

Asiana Airlines said it planned to take legal action because it was "demeaned" by the racially discriminatory account of the crash by KTVU-TV. Poor taste, however, is not the standard for prevailing in a defamation case, and it's difficult to envision how Asiana Airline's reputation was damaged by the false report. Except for the station's news executives who were asleep at the wheel, most people who heard the account probably did not believe the ridiculous names. Neither could KTVU-TV be found liable for actual malice, because, although it didn't distinguish itself journalistically by falling for the cruel prank, it did, nonetheless, attempt to corroborate the phony names by contacting the NTSB, a sound journalistic practice.

Asiana Airlines would be better served by reviewing its flight training practices than by bringing dubious face-saving lawsuits, and the doofus responsible for the wacky monikers might consider how he or she would explain to the survivors and family members of the Flight 214 fatalities why his or her attempt at humor was so screamingly funny.

Texas Appeals Court Tosses Defamation Suit Against Local TV Station

A three-judge panel for The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas last week ruled that a trial court erred in denying a local television news station the use of the state's anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") law as a defense in a defamation claim by the founder of a school for special needs students.

Justice Jim Sharp wrote the 21-page opinion in KTRK Television, Inc. v. Theaola Robinson (Case No. 01-12-00372-CV) that decided the station should have been able to invoke the Texas Citizens Participation Act ("TCPA") [Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. secs. 27.001-011] in its defense against the plaintiff's December 2011, lawsuit alleging she was defamed by reports aired by the ABC affiliate that purportedly accused her of embezzling $3 million in state funds. The station was covering a dispute between the Texas Education Association and Benji's Special Education Academy, the charter school Robinson founded in 1980.

"The reports did not say or imply that the entire $3 million in state funds had been misappropriated or embezzled," Justice Sharp wrote. "Rather, the statements speak to the insufficiency of financial records to account for spent state funds."
                                                                           
The appeallate panel said the plaintiff's defamation claim lacked sufficient proof and should have been dismissed under the TCPA.  (Tip of the hat to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Web site, www.rcfp.org, for reporting on the case.)