Quoting a quote is slander [Archive]

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

12-30-2003, 06:00 AM

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:20:17 +1000, "|-|erc"
<trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> in misc.legal, wrote the following:

<snip a bundle>

when I wrote:
No,the Senior Constable made it clear it was not a direct quote, and when one uses the term "such as" it means it is a paraphrase of what was actually said. It would be reasonable for a newspaper to use his paraphrase quote during the interview with the Senior Constable, and asis it common practice to paraphrase in quotes, inside quotes again?

Inside single quotes, yes, it is. The operative phrase which tells you
it is a _paraphrase_ of quoted material is the use of the term "such
as."
Thankyou for the input, I'll go over it later but I've stated everything.ONE, the email recipient was skeptics@kasm.comSay that fast 3 times, I know that wont hold in court but its meaningfuland related to my parnormal claim that names have meaning.

Uhm, I see....Well, no, I don't, so I have to assume it has meaning to
YOU. It doesn't to me.
TWO, why did the newspaper admit fraud with a play on the top related story. "INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING"

Because it was about an investigator, Frank Monte, who attempted to
defame the Versace family? Did you bother to even READ that article?
It had nothing to do with you or your case.
Are you certain this is unrelated to the story? Are you familiar with media layoutsand using advertising space.

It's absolutely unrelated to YOUR case, if you would bother to read it.
THREE, I am not qualfied to comment on the technical accuracy of the quotes.The level of grammar required to understand the single quotes ' ' around mywords were not my own words, is well above average, i.e. a minority of the public.

I suspect that most reasonably well-read people understand the rules of
grammar in regards to quotes. Paraphrasing involves putting a passage
from the source material into your own words (which is where James also
was correct when he used the phrase "such as" making it clear it was HIS
words and not a direct quote from you). A paraphrase must also be
attributed to the original source (ergo, the single [' ' ] quotes
within James' quote]. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the
original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and
condensing it slightly.

This is _exactly_ what Senior Constable James did, and the quote HE made
was properly attributed to him by the newspaper as a "paraphrase" of
your various statements, which he predicated with the term "such as,"
which was thus _quoted verbatim from him by the newspaper_.

<snip argumentum>FOUR, (b) it did not publish the material recklessly This is exactly false.The police had a list of quoted sentences off me. They snipped and snipped untilthe 2 sentences together, an altered reply ASAP demand next to a threat, looked like extortion.The newspaper used EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK to make it look like my words.

You appear to have more problems with the newspaper (and the constable)
than can be handled in a legal newsgroup, IMO. I personally see no
evidence of any malice on anyone's part here, at least as far as you
have reported it.

The truth is the newspaper quoted its interviewee, who paraphrased your
(self-affirmed) statements, which you said (implicitly or explicitly) to
Williams and the Australian Skeptics, and which was likely reasonable
under the circumstance, based upon the evidence James had before him
when he made his statement. That's how I see it, and I daresay how the
Australian Courts would see it under their qualified privilege rule for
newspapers (and law enforcement officers, see below).

<snip argumentum again which has nothing to do with the technical side
of reporting>
Do a poll. Get people to read the article, the ask them who wrote this"reply or pay consequences. I am about to put..."Sergeant or Mr Cooper ?????

If they have bothered to read the article, they will say that Senior
Constable James said the statement. What people say who have _heard_
about the newspaper article say, I cannot say as to their accuracy, but
what the newspaper printed and how it printed it is the issue which is
important here.
The policeman is a crook, but he's just putting people away that have a finger pointedat them, thats what law comes down to. But the newspaper thrived on it. Theywanted those words attributed to me and they succeeded.

To prove actual malice in a defamation action to an organization with a
qualified privilege, such as a newspaper, is fairly impossible in
Australia, who relies firstly upon the US Supreme Court case of _New
York Times v. Sullivan_ requirements that "actual malice" on the part of
the newspaper have to be proven by the plaintiff in _fact_, and not
merely alleged.

See New York Times v. Sullivan at
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html

There, the Supreme Court said:

"...Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both,
are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements
unless 'actual malice' - knowledge that statements are false or in
reckless disregard of the truth - is alleged and proved."

The Court there concluded in regards actual malice which had to be
proved:

"As to the Times, we similarly conclude that the facts do not support a
finding of actual malice. The statement by the Times' Secretary that,
apart from the padlocking allegation, he thought the advertisement was
'substantially correct,' affords no constitutional warrant for the
Alabama Supreme Court's conclusion that it was a 'cavalier ignoring of
the falsity of the advertisement [from which] the jury could not have
but been impressed with the bad faith of The Times, and its
maliciousness inferable therefrom.' The statement does not indicate
malice at the time of the publication; even if the advertisement was not
'substantially correct' - although respondent's own proofs tend to show
that it was - that opinion was at least a reasonable one, and there was
no evidence to impeach the witness' good faith in holding it. The Times'
failure to retract upon respondent's demand. although it later retracted
upon the demand of Governor Patterson, is likewise not adequate evidence
of malice for constitutional purposes.

<...>

Finally, there is evidence that the Times published the advertisement
without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own
files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of
course, establish that the Times 'knew' the advertisement was false,
since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be
brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having
responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. With respect to
the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that
they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those
whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the
letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible
individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There
was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in
it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of
rejecting advertisements containing 'attacks of a personal character';
27 their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We
think [376 U.S. 254, 288] the evidence against the Times supports at
most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements,
and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is
required for a finding of actual malice."

Secondly, the previous case to which I referred to you, that of
_Theophanous v. The Herald Weekly Times Ltd v. Times Ltd & Anor_, it
was held that a defamatory publication will not be actionable under the
Australian law relating to defamation if the defendant establishes that:
(a) it was unaware of the falsity of the material published; (b) it did
not publish the material recklessly (i. e., not caring if the material
was true or false); and (c) the publication was reasonable in the
circumstances.

I suspect most Australian newspapers can simply present their case that
a) they "relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation" of their
source (Senior Constable James) as a starting point, that b) there was
no knowledge on their part that what Senior Constable James said was not
"substantially correct," and c) their opinion as to the "correctness" of
what James said was at least a reasonable one, based upon their
knowledge of James' reputation as a police officer.

As such, the Courts in Australia are more likely to conclude there is
(from what I have seen alleged by you thus far) no evidence to impeach
the newspaper's good faith in holding this opinion that what James said
was "substantially correct." As such, they will have met both _New
York Times v. Sullivan_ requirements, as well as those of _Theophanous_
and, IMO, not be held liable for their reporting of what James said.

Nor do I think that by _paraphrasing your actual statements_ James
harmed you as well (you did say to Williams and the Australian Skeptics
via their suggestion box, "you ripped me off $100,000," did you not? You
did say, when they did not respond to your repeated e-mails, "please
reply in a day or two," [cut your editorial comment about sarcasm] "I am
about to put Ratsak....." did you not?).

IMO, it's also VERY likely that police statements to media, if made in
the form of paraphrase, where the information is (as you say)
"technically correct" would also be covered by the qualified privilege
granted by _NY Times v. Sullivan_ and _Theophanous_, unless direct
factual proof of malice can be shown.

In short, I don't see you having much of a case under Australian
defamation law, but if there are Australian or international lawyers who
have different opinions, please comment.

Done.

--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.