Judge: Homosexual Isn't Libelous Term

[shawn703]

Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.



"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.


more...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040529_838.html

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Yeah, right...

So, do people preface straights by saying something such as, "...you know, my heterosexual friend, John Doe...", or "...Jane Doe, the heterosexual woman down the street...". No. That's not done. To use a preface such as homosexual, gay, or lesbian when identifying a person shows a bias. IMO, it could be construed as libelous, and at the very least unneccessary, when there's an identifier used regarding a person. Were there any photo captions in Madonna's book stating, "...walking down the street with a heterosexual man..."?

[specialsas]

2. I'll support banning the term homosexual when we ban "Breeder"

Either one can be used to slam the subject of conversation.

[Leprechan29]

20. While it is often used in a derogatory manner,

The term homosexual is used to identify a person, where as heterosexual is not ("my heterosexual friend, John Doe..."), in part because homosexuality is not considered the norm, the status quo, and therefore the differences are used to identify that person from others.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Does that mean that the judge is a lesbian just because she...

is now associated with the case?


****************
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.

WHAT?? Does not make any sense? Does it? Is she saying that the only way it can be libel or slander is if prejudice and bigotry is acceptable?

[TrogL]

4. That's a very interesting position

But will work only when homophobia has been eliminated from our society.

On the merits of the case however, he would have been better to put forward that it might expose him to homophobia, not that it identified him as "gay".

[GoddessOfGuinness]

5. Until GLBTs are given the same rights as everybody else

I think it is a slanderous/libelous term.

[last1standing]

6. I agree with this ruling.

At least as far as I can tell, the judge is saying that the only way to consider the word "homosexual" as slander is to believe that gay people are less human in some way than heterosexuals. If this is the case then I agree. It would be equivalent to suing because the book said a white man was black or a Christian was Jewish. Neither would be slanderous, just factually incorrect.

Am I missing something?

[ashling]

7. I agree as well.

I have not taken a case on libel or slander in many years, but as I remember from law school, in the common law there were certain things so malicious, so horrible as to be slander per se, like alleging that someone had a horible contagious disease like syphilis, calling a woman a whore, or any number of things deemed abhorent by society. And, yes, calling someone a homosexual was considered to be on of those things.

Though I have not read the ruling in this case, it appears that this judge is correctly ruling that this is no longer the law.

A perfectly sound ruling. In fact, I am surprised to see the outcry here on DU. I would think that this would have Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Phyllis Shlafely up in arms, though.

:shrug:

[AP]

8. This is actually progress, though it doesn't sound like it to some.

It used to be that there were four or five things that were considered de facto defamation. One was being syphilitic, another was being cuckolded, and being gay was another one (IIRC).

Common law in many states has been dropping these de facto defamatory statements one by one. There is a formula for defamation which you have to apply if the statement didn't fall into one of those categories (basically, it has to be an injury to your reputation).

So, it's not that being called gay, or cuckolded no longer is defamatory. It's that you have to prove all the elements of defamation.

This is a good thing.

[dsc]

9. I think anytime you lie about someone

you should have to prove you didn't damage them instead of them having to prove you did. In fairness, the damages suffered by him probably weren't all that great but he should have gotten something for being lied about.

[AP]

10. The punishment for telling a lie is being called a liar.

The punishment for defaming someone is pay the damages that you caused.

The civil justice sytem is founded on the premise that you pay the damages proximately caused by your failure to adhere to a standard of care to wich the law requires you adhere.

[dsc]

11. how much work would it have taken Madonna

or the photo editor, to find out if the man was really gay or not? He was her bodyguard for Pete's sake. I am not saying the man is entitled to the moon, but he should get some amount of money especially if he is single. Dating can't be too good for him after having been labeled a homosexual.

[AP]

12. What are the damages they caused by not?

If there were any, he would have proved them and rcv'd compensation.

the per se rules meant that you didn't have to prove damages. the new rule says that you do.

if he could prove that someone wouldn't date him because of the picture, and if he could put a value on that, he would have rcv'd that.

[dsc]

13. would you date someone who you felt wasn't itnerested in you?

They declared him ineligible to the gender he wishes to date. If he is married, then no damage done, but if he isn't that would be a pretty big problem. Presumedly he can disabuse people of the notion, but that isn't easily done.

[AP]

14. I edited my previous post. check it out if you missed it.

If he could prove that happened, he probably would have gotten some money.

When being called gay was per se defamation, you didn't have to prove damages.

Now, in this court, you do.

[dsc]

15. damages are often hard to prove

and I think that sloppy journalists should be treated like other sloppy people and have to pay for their errors. This mistake was very easily avoided and thus should be treated more harshly than more difficult to catch ones. Certainly being gay is easier now than it was before. But there stil is alot of discrimination out there and most of it is legal. In all honesty a public mea culpa on the part of the publisher and a token amount of money would be satisfactory unless he really did suffer a huge problem due to parental rejection, loss of job, or something like that.

[AP]

16. That's the whole point. It used to be that some things were just so

beyond the pale that you dind't have to prove damages: syphilis, being a prostitute and being gay. That they caused damages was so obvious you didn't need to show what they were.

Now we treat everything equally.

That's a good thing.

[dsc]

17. In theory, maybe

but in practice, I am not so sure. Given where the case was, I can see some point to this ruling. But in many other parts of this country, I think it is a different story. Being gay in the Bible belt is no picnic. It should be noted that the only reason sodomy isn't against the law in Massachusetts is due to the Lawerence case. In one of histories bizarre coincidences, very liberal Massachusetts was one of the dozen or so states with active sodomy laws when Lawerence was handed down. Given that the legislature didn't see fit to remove that law itself, it does make one wonder how progressive even Massachusetts is about gays. I still think that this kind of mistake should be punished given the ease with which it could have been avoided.

[AP]

18. Then it would be be easier to prove damages in those regions.

Most states award pretty big damages for any defamatory statement which costs you your job, by the way.

Another thing you have to remembe is that in the US we require proof of damages for most claims of defamation because we falue free speech here.

I agree the media takes it too far, sometimes. But I also think that it's pretty good that people aren't always looking over their shoulder every time they say something. A good balance for that is that you should pay for the damages you cause be defaming people, and not pay everytime you make a mistake.

It may be the case that the point of the Madonna article was to say how great it was that she has gay friends. If publishers were worried about libel per se every time they discussed gay issues, perhaps we'd have a less open discussions about sexuality.

[JusticeForAll]

19. This guy deserves a lot of cash

Why is it this man's burden to bear the irresponsible behavior of a journalist? For as long as Madonna is popular he will be continuously jibed by unsympathetic, insensitive colleagues, friends, and family for something he is not.

I'm gay and know the taunting he will get. He will have it worse because he IS straight and people will think, oh he has nothing to worry about...he's straight so I can poke fun at his "perceived homosexuality"

He may receive unwelcome advances at his class reunions as a result, or maybe by avid Madonna fans on the street (There's a lot of gay people who seem to worship her). His marriage (if he is married) may suffer as a result. He may lose his job if he ever decides to work in an "At will" state. Emotional injury from incessant taunts and jibes. Sexual dysfunction...who knows! These aren't damages? The damages cannot be quantified right now, but I bet the damages will be many and lingering.

This ruling is bullshit. The rationale sounds nice, pretty, gay-friendly and politically correct, but this guy deserves a lot of cash for something that was said about him that is untrue and could cause substantial damages.

[AP]

21. Perhaps being gay won't be seen as such a bad thing when people

appreciate that the gov't isn't treating it like it's one of the four worst things you can say about someone.

And if it REALLY is so awful, this guy will be able to prove damages and win his suit.