Hey Corey Clark, This Streisand Effect’s For You!

Remember Corey Clark? Neither do I.

Remember Corey Clark? Neither do I.

For those of you fortunate enough to have forgotten about Corey Clark: he had a brief fling with celebrity after he was kicked off American Idol in 2003 and later accused then-Idol judge Paula Abdul of secretly helping him advance in the show while they were having a clandestine, and obviously unethical, sexual relationship. He did this, class act that he is, two years later while he was promoting an album release.

I didn’t remember Corey Clark either, until a typical reputation-cleaner (that is, dishonest and threatening) called me on the phone yesterday, misrepresenting himself as working for Clark’s lawyer, and told me that Clark was engaged in litigation regarding “defamatory” material published about him. He said that a post on Ethics Alarms’ predecessor, The Ethics Scoreboard, had “defamed” Clark in 2005 by stating that he had been convicted of a felony, and this was a demand that I either retract that post or take it down.

This, is, of course, approaching the patented territory of Ken at Popehat, whose specialty is opposing creeps who try to censor opinion on the internet by threatening spurious but expensive litigation against bloggers. As I told Clark’s paid lackey, who spouted erroneous legal theories and had a rudimentary understanding of defamation at best, I was only recounting what I had read in published reports at the time. There could be no defamation, as 1) Clark was, at the time, a public figure, 2) I wrote what I thought was true and accurate and 3) there was no malice involved. He asked me for my source, prompting me to say that I would have been able to supply him with one and would have done so gladly if his employer’s client hadn’t waited seven years to bring the post to my attention. The Scoreboard has not been active since 2009.

If this had been a lawyer’s assistant, as I was led to believe,the lawyer would have been guilty of an ethical violation, because his agent was misrepresenting the law, something a lawyer and his assistants may not do.  The statute of limitations for defamation starts running when the information at issue is published, and no state allows a lawsuit after more than three years. This was, at best, a bluff; I would call it an outright lie. Still, I don’t want to be responsible for publicizing inaccurate information after I know it is incorrect.

I said that I would be happy to issue a retraction or to take down or edit the original post if I ascertained that the information was indeed erroneous. I also asked for the courtesy of an e-mail giving me the name of the lackey and the lawyer I though he was working for, stating exactly what Clark’s beef was. Naturally, I didn’t get one (until several days later, after I had posted this). I did check the facts, however, and indeed, I had been incorrect when I wrote, in 2005, that Clark

“was kicked off “American Idol” for not revealing to producers a felony conviction related to his attack on his sister.”

No, he was not convicted of a felony, as my source, whatever it was, reported in 2005. In 2002, Corey Clark was charged in Kansas District Court with resisting arrest, battery upon, yes, his sister, and criminal restraint, as a result of an episode where he resisted arrest and fought with police after neighbors reported that his 15-year-old sister was screaming. Clark cut a plea bargain, pleading “no contest” to “obstructing legal process” and was sentenced to six months probation and ordered to pay $116.00 in legal costs. His sister, as is often the case in cases involving alleged battery of a family member, claimed that nothing happened. “No contest” is a plea that allows a defendant to avoid trial while not exactly pleading guilty—it means “I know I’m going to lose in court, but I don’t admit to the crime.” As for the felony part, the way I read the statute, “obstructing legal process” would be a felony in Clark’s case because the crime underlying the offense, battery, is a felony. I could be wrong however.  Was Clark kicked off American Idol for not telling them about this adventure in the legal system?  Absolutely. Clark denies that he didn’t tell American Idol, because national talent competitions traditionally have no problem when their winners have been arrested for beating up girls.  You can decide who is more likely to be telling the truth.

The source for this correction is Wikipedia, which is the kind of source that keeps tabs on the activities of people like Corey Clark.

So there you have it, Mr. Clark: my voluntary correction of the post in question, written in good faith and belief in 2005, read by about four people since, and the object of your lackey’s gratuitous threats based on a misrepresentation of defamation law and willful ignorance of the statute of limitations. I certainly hope that everyone who will read about this non-conviction and your failure to inform an employer who would be embarrassed by it will use the information to form fair and reasonable assessments of your character. I also hope you didn’t pay very much to the low-life who called me.

And do check out “the Streisand Effect.”

10 thoughts on “Hey Corey Clark, This Streisand Effect’s For You!

  1. Jack, the offenses were misdemeanors as charged: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/three-count-misdemeanor-complaint . A plea of “no contest” however, still seems to count as a conviction: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_46/21-4614.html And it related, i.e. arose out of, his “alleged” attack on his sister. Oh, and he was kicked off for not revealing the arrest–the conviction came later. Thus, let’s correct the record: ““was kicked off “American Idol” for not revealing to producers an arrest, that resulted in misdemeanor conviction, related to his alleged attack on his sister.” Ta-da!

    I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t cite counsel’s unethical lack of candor in failing to properly identify themselves.

  2. (eg,.Swafford Vs. Memphis individual practice ass’n , 1998 WL 281935 Tenn. Ct. App . June 2nd , 1998) you boys take a look at this case and see why single publication & S.O.L. doesn’t apply to Corey Clarks case. This case holds that each time a defamatory article on the internet is accessed it resets the S.O.L. & counts as a continuing or multiple publication. Since Corey Lives in Tennessee where this law is the controlling doctrine & is one of the many places around the world that Jacks article was published to, Looks like Jack here is S.O.L.

    • Go back to law school. You obviously can’t read opinions. Swoffard had to do with a credit database that was separately accessed, and ruled that each time the information was taken out of the database, it reset the statute. The original story about Corey was continuously and openly accessible at all times on a public website for seven years—there was no “re-publication.”

      You don’t know what you are talking about, but the article doesn’t meet the standards of defamation even if you did. Bye.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.