Democratic consultant sues GOP blogger for defamation

[Judi Lynn]

Democratic consultant sues GOP blogger for defamation

By The Associated Press
01.05.06
MINNEAPOLIS — A Democratic public relations consultant is suing a Republican blogger for defamation in a case that could offer a key test of the First Amendment rights of bloggers.

The lawsuit pits Blois Olson, the president of PR firm New School Communications and a well-known Democratic political commentator, against Michael Brodkorb, a Republican operative who publishes the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed.

In the lawsuit, which will be filed in Dakota County District Court, Olson disputes a series of postings by Brodkorb last week about criticisms Olson made of the congressional campaign of fellow Democrat Coleen Rowley. Brodkorb wrote that an anonymous source told him that the Rowley campaign refused to hire New School Communications for consulting work, prompting Brodkorb to ask why Olson didn’t disclose that when he criticized Rowley in several news stories.

“That is false, that is a lie, that is defamation,” Steve Silton, Olson’s attorney, said yesterday of claims that New School tried to get consulting work with the Rowley campaign.
(snip/...)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16262

[AspenRose]

1. What, republicans LIE? I'm shocked.

Really. :sarcasm:

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Good...if bloggers post false and defamatory information, they should get

sued.

Why the fuck not?

[Ezlivin]

3. Slander is slander

Exactly right.

[depakid]

5. It's libel

but there's no reason to believe that defamation cases would be any different on the internet than anywhere else.

The take home message on that is- check your facts before blogging (or maybe even posting) something that's potentially defamatory.... not an unreasonable thing to ask. It only improves your street cred.

[wryter2000]

6. Exactly

I don't see why this should be any more a test of the First Amendment than any other type of defamation/slander. Using a blog as a medium doesn't shouldn't buy you any kind of immunity.

[hang a left]

4. I agree with posters 2 and 3 n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. You have to demonstrate substantial harm

in a libel action. That's the bottom line. And that would be, one assumes, more difficult for a message board site. The more difficult question would be whether the site organizers could be sued, since they provide a location for such postings. No doubt the Grokster decision would be relevant on that score.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rainscents]

11. We don't make up shit and spread...

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

14. No, we get trolls now & then.

They're generally tombstoned before they do much damage.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGKrebs]

9. Sheesh, surely Limbaugh could be liable then.

[displacedtexan]

10. Well, first of all, that MDE guy violates every fair use agreement...

known to man. His posts consist of entire AP and local newspaper articles.

I noticed that he refuses to make the distinction between Humphrey (the guy who supposedly bid for a Rowley contract, independent of the place where he worked) and the place where he worked, New School Communications.

In my opinion (as a blogger and as your DU Blog Box columnist), this Repuke blogger is toast. He may be able to fool his idiot readers, but he can't blur the law in front of a judge.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[brentspeak]

16. Republican operatives

The footsoldiers behind things like the SmearVets and the McCain S.C. primary rumors. Cockroaches have more ethics and dignity than these Karl Rove wannabes.