Now THAT’S Defamation…

I don’t know what is so hard to grasp about the concept of defamation. The idea is that one must not assert as fact something about a person that is demonstrably false and that holds that person up to public ridicule or hostility, harming their reputation. It is easily distinguishable from opinion: it must be published “with fault,” meaning as a result of negligence (asserting a “fact” without checking that it is true) or malice (with the intent of harming someone’s reputation). Why is that difficult? I don’t know. This guy, however, really doesn’t understand defamation, and he was a radio talk show host. That’s like not understanding snakes and becoming a snake charmer. Yes, the ethics value being missed here is competence.

New Hampshire radio talk show host Michael Gill (above)  used billboards, his website and his radio show called “State of Corruption Radio” to call local businessmen, among other things, heroin dealers. A typical broadcasts included quotes like this:

“Now I told you, and I’ve been telling you, the heroin dealers are in this state are Anagnost and Crews. Now who are these people? Well a couple of the wealthiest men in our state. That’s how they got wealthy, okay? They have a warehouse. I brought this up. We had witnesses, distributing and unloading drugs and machine guns from trucks.”

Wait, what? Didn’t this guy have a lawyer? Didn’t the station have a lawyer? Any lawyer within hearing distance of a broadcast like that had a duty to rush to the station, break into the studio, and stuff a wadded up sock in Gill’s mouth.

In one broadcast, Gill appeared to be daring his victims to sue him:

“I accused Anagnost and Crews, and Greiner by the way, of being drug dealers . . . They’re fine citizens, you know, Anagnost and Crews, right. You didn’t hear Anagnost and Crews one time saying they weren’t drug dealers now did you? Because I didn’t hear that. In fact, if you go on to read it, they both say they don’t want to sue me. Really. I’d sue you. And you’d sue me back, wouldn’t you. But why aren’t they. Because it is the truth, and you know it’s the truth.”

But they weren’t drug dealers, and Gill had no evidence that they were drug dealers. Making a public statement that a law-abiding citizen is a criminal is such a classic example of defamation that it’s almost unheard of, because nobody is stupid enough to do that, especially with the speed of social media to contend with. Why didn’t they sue him immediately? There are lots of possible reasons, one of them being that they really were drug dealers, but far from the only one. Another more likely one is that it seemed easier and cheaper to just ignore this jerk, and assume that nobody took him seriously.  Making outrageous accusations and using the fact that you haven’t been sued as evidence that they are true is like playing Russian Roulette.

Well, Gill’s victims finally did sue for libel and slander. Several of the plaintiffs and their families have helped fund and manage a nonprofit drug and alcohol addiction recovery center, something heroin dealers tend not to get involved with. The jury came back with a record-breaking $274 million verdict against Michael Gill, ten times greater than the previous New Hampshire record for a personal injury claim.

Good.

 

10 Comments

Filed under Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement

10 responses to “Now THAT’S Defamation…

  1. RomanBW

    Speaking recently about morons, and idiots; now here we have one, who is not only a moron and an idiot, but also an unethical one. For such, I have no sentiment, nor compassion!

  2. Aleksei

    I’ve actually seen this story on Friday, I think. I’m going to guess Mr. Michael Gill probably doesn’t even have 1 million dollars. Would they have to legally conducted all his property and then jail him? I’m not well versed in what happens in such cases, when the defendant can’t pay the damages.

  3. Wayne

    Well, I guess he’s out of a job and dumb as a pile of bricks.

  4. Pennagain

    My hands are waving in the air – Why didn’t the station shut him down? If the defamed ones complained to the station owner (presumably they didn’t) would he have had to take notice? Is the station liable for anything at all under any circumstances?

    and . . . machine guns? Ma-chine Guns? What century is this man living in, and no wonder the defamed ones didn’t take notice right away.

    Last, I fold my lowered arms and rest my head upon them, burdened by knowing that his faithful listeners, brickheads all (thank you, Other Bill) will already be filling the tweet-waves deploring the loss of their favorite radio host and castigating the defamed ones for lacking a sense of humor.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s