Free Speech vs Defamation of Character

From Seattle Post Intelligence:

PERUGIA --Italian authorities have served the parents of Amanda Knox with legal papers notifying them they are under investigation for defamation, an accusation related to their allegations that police brutalized their daughter.

People might feel sympathy for Amanda because she's young and cute (despite the denim jacket). The Italian people already distrust their police. Heck, we aren't very big fans of our own police, here in Washington. These claims, truth or not, only reinforce a pre-existing distrust of police.

What actions do the police, as employees of the state, have against these allegations. By rules of logic, they are unable to prove that misconduct did not occur. Their best option is to maintain their professionalism and transparency throughout the case.

Cases of defamation of character in American courts are typically awarded to situations regarding individuals and private organizations. Cases that hold up in court are typically follow a utilitarian argument, gauging the malicious repercussions of the message against the social utility of the content.

For example, a department store may not post photographs of shoplifters on its front doors because it is of no use to the public to see the faces of people who have already paid for their crimes. Also, the information may hurt business opportunities otherwise available to publicly shamed individuals. A libertarian argument would suggest that public image is like a commodity that holds value. Damage inflicted upon public image is like damage of any other property and must be compensated for.

People exempt from pressing defamation charges are public figures such as politicians and celebrities. Their public image is regarded as public property and a fair subject for free speech.

Story of Tim Brenton and Christopher Monfort

I've been following the story of Officer Tim Brenton and Christopher Monfort pretty closely because I am interested in stories that reflect upon issues of security and civil rights.



Police officer shot dead Halloween night. (article) Brenton's position as a senior police officer and a mentor to Britt Sweeney enhances the symbolic meaning of the story. A police officer is dead and we are faced with the mortality of our protectors

Police in search of suspicious car. (article) Once we establish the mortality of our hero, we introduce our faceless anti-hero. He draws power from his obscurity.

I know it is a lot to ask from the city, but I would like to see video evidence released to the public. Screen shots of video are not enough.

Police share theory about suspect. (article) Our anti-hero challenges the morality of our hero. Our villain wants us to ask questions about the deputy sheriff and the girl in SeaTac. Our ghost story becomes a moral dilemma.

Monfort is shot at his home. (article) As DNA and other evidence is collected, it is important to note that Seattle Police own this story. The journalists were good to gather some additional comments when available but the Police remain the sole proprietors of meat to this story.

Friends and family of Monfort have an opportunity to speak to the press at this time. Often friends and family will decline to speak with the press, often by request of their lawyers, out of fear that the press is out to ruin the case and create prejudice against them before the jury is assembled. It is the journalist's first priority to understand the family's need for space but it is also important for the family to understand that silence is not always the best option. In the Monfort case, silence is counter productive.

If Monfort is innocent, it is the duty of his friends and family to step forward now to clear his name. If Monfort is guilty, the journalist might offer an opportunity for speak anonymously. Either way, if the journalist is not able to dig up information about Monfort, he loses an opportunity to tell a compelling story.

Monfort questioned authority. (article) When friends and family do not speak, a journalist must rely only on public record. Here is where we establish Monfort's identity as a proponent of freedom. He witnessed the fall of The Berlin Wall and participated in the first Iraq war. In school, Monfort was deeply passionate about the people's right to a government that stays within the confines of the constitution.

The danger of these findings is that the story becomes instantly political when the shooter is identified as representing a political point of view already grossly associated with domestic terrorism. For example, should society be fearful of people who question authority?

This story ends with a dead police officer but its power is in the conflict between security and freedom. The intent is not to vilify Monfort because to do so would to paint Brenton's death in vain. Also, the story is not to patronize Monfort's politics as to neglect the true struggle of the human condition.

assignment: neil horsley

neil horsely himself posted this video on youtube.

i told neil, " news and rhetoric should not be confused. news does not cast moral judgment. rhetoric does and also calls for action."

he replied to me right away: The very subjects chosen as "news" proves a moral judgment is being made by the news media. Why report when a law is broken? A moral judgment has been made by the news media that breaking the law is bad. Every news report telegraphs a moral presupposition that is obvious to people with eyes that see and ears that hear. Oh wait! Now I see why you didn't understand that news DOES cast moral judgment.

my statement to him is, "the idea of news and the application of news are arguably two different things. for practical purposes, the lines between news and rhetoric are fuzzy. but the idea of news and the idea of rhetoric are different."

"news does not report violations of the law because it is bad but because logically, it violates public safety and compromises the integrity of the marketplace. its goal is to bring attention to conditions. the analysis of those conditions is up to the viewer.

"rhetoric is different from news because it overtly dispatches a call to action. the news tells you that your neighbor has been robbed. the manipulative rhetorician tells you to buy a gun because you are next. you could argue that the news also encourages you to find means to protect yourself but this is only through inductive reasoning on your behalf."

i am curious how he will respond to this but i do not expect it to be very insightful. neil is the type of man who relies on violence to get his point across.

if you follow this link read the description that he gives his video, you will see: "This provides a good overview of the abortioncams project as well as the kinds of media attacks the project creates."

Look at the last part. This video is a good overview of the kinds of media attacks (Neil) creates through his videos.

This is fascinating to me.