Discussions
Should Pro Life protesters (and their funding organizations) be sued, en masse, for slander/libel?
Posted by jfinn1319 • 2/17/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: abortion, politics, pro choice, pro-life, protest, religion
So, I was responding to another thread this morning:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/death-penalty-abortion
Thinking about my own response, I started to wonder if any family planning clinic or doctor performing abortions had ever successfully sued a protest group or evangelical organization for slanderously applying the labels "murder" or "murderer" to people performing a legal service.
Follow the bouncing ball; murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. Since abortion is Legal (ergo lawful) and fetuses have no legal claims to being defined as human, the statement that, a person choosing to terminate a pregnancy or a doctor performing the procedure is a murderer is verifiably false. If the doctors and women who've endured these slanderous and libelous accusations banded together and sued any still operating groups of protesters or publications for personal and punitive damages (going back say, three decades)wouldn't that do wonders for making people think twice before screaming hastily formed political or religious rhetoric?
Just a thought, but I can think of worse sights than the assembled leaders of the Christian Right being dragged into court for overstepping their protected free speech.
Anyone know of any cases like this?
User Comments
-
I'm not sure they should be sued, unless of course they have caused serious damage to a doctor/clinic's reputation and business by blacklisting them or such. They do need to tone it down, though, and they shouldn't be allowed to throw around such words.
I mean, I'm religious but all for abortion if needed, and I think it's awful that pro-life groups act as they do towards abortion clinics, women, and doctors. Suing would teach them a lesson, of course, but it does seem a little drastic (and similar to how the pro-life people would react if this was happening to them). They really need to take a hint from the pro-choice supporters and stop harassing people.
But I haven't heard of any cases of suing them, it would be interesting to find out
-
I just posted a long response to the other thread you listed about the death penalty (against) and abortion rights (for). I don't know if family planning practitioners have tried this tactic. I did find an article about Planned Parenthood suing a Pro-Life university student.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834811/posts -
Unless the suit can pinpoint a particular person or group and prove libel or slander, or some form of tangible harassment - I would say no.
To me, lawsuits regarding group opinions, free speech, and protests open up a slippery slope of lawsuits for/against other groups.-
Anok:
But that's the point, anyone carrying a sign saying "abortion is murder" while standing outside a clinic is committing libel and as such is open to litigation. -
But are they? Libel and slander rely a great deal on intent.
If I go to a protest carrying a sign that say "so and so is a crook" can I be sued?
I doubt it, because it's in protest form. -
If the sign just says, "Abortion is murder," then they haven't slandered anyone. If it said, "Dr. Smith is a murderer," then they've crossed the line, in my opinion. -
"But that's the point, anyone carrying a sign saying "abortion is murder" while standing outside a clinic is committing libel and as such is open to litigation."
No, they're not. Actionable defamation (many states no longer distinguish between libel and slander) generally requires damage to the target of that libel based on the false statements having been heard and believed (or in some other harmful way taken into account). "Abortion is murder" is clearly a statement of opinion--statements of opinion are not actionable. "Abortion is murder" does not make a claim about a particular person--thus no one has been specifically defamed.
There is a foreseeable scenario in which a related claim might be actionable. If, for instance, a pro-life group set up a website that said, "Dr. Fred Jones committed murder" without explanation, such that it would create the perception that this particular person had committed murder as the term is used legally and killed a post-born person, that might be actionable. But what you describe above isn't even a close call.
-
-
The only way you could prove damages is if what is said is untrue--and since it would largely be considered a matter of opinion whether a person who has an abortion is guilty of murder, then I think it is hard to prove slander.
Not that I am agreeing with the people who call abortion doctors murderers--believe me--I am a San Francisco lefty. I am just calling the glaring problem I see to this argument.-
mtyler:
How is it a matter of opinion?
Abortion is murder.-Under the dictionary and legal definition of the word murder, this is an untrue statement. It's not opinion, the law flat out doesn't support it.
Yay, lefties! -
Murder isn't always used as a strict legal definition, and, in fact has several legal definitions.
On it's most general level, murder simply means to kill another. So...it is a matter of opinion. -
Anok:
From Dictionary.com
mur⋅der
/ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mur-der] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
Killing means killing, murder means killing illegally. Soldiers killing other soldiers isn't considered murder, in countries where mercy killing is legal those deaths aren't considered murder. If a "death" (and I'm using quotations because nobody has ever shown sufficient evidence that in an abortion we're talking about a human life) is allowed under the law, it's not murder. The word was originally created as a legal term, it doesn't matter what its general use is. -
Actually nothing in that definition says anything about it be unlawful which is your argument.
-
-
"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law."
And actually I should have included this as well, it was further down the page as a clarification:
"mur·der (mûr'dər) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
v. intr.
To commit murder."
That cover it for you? -
"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law"
An abortion is specifically covered under laws. It is legal, under the laws.
Murder has many different interpretations and meaning. That is the flaw with your argument, here.
If a protester carried a sign that said "Dr so-and-so is a convicted murderer" you'd have a case for libel/slander. As it stands, calling abortion murder is a protected form of free speech because of the wide varieties of interpretations.
Whether we like it or not.
-
-
Ok, that's fair, but...
1)In this mini thread we were responding to mtyler's question about whether defining abortion as murder was a statement of opinion. When I provided not one but two alternative definitions that backed up my point about legal definitions you completely ignored the one that specifically, in plain language, addressed the issue of what murder primarily means. You then dodged the issue by tying back in to the main thread. We weren't talking about libel or slander anymore, but whether murder is an appropriate term to apply to abortion.
2)You ended that post with one of least effective debate tools known to man. Phrases like "Whether we like it or not," or "that's that," or "end of discussion," are the written equivalent of yelling really loud to try and convince people you're right. Bad Anok! Your opinion is not the be all and end all, whether we like it or not. :D
You're right though, I should have defined what I was trying to get across more thoroughly. Going from the argument that I made, and think stands for itself, that abortion cannot legally be called murder; if a protest group or publication specifically references a particular clinic or organization (Planned Parenthood for example) as having murdered x number of babies, does that not constitute slander if spoken or libel if printed?-
The "whether we like it or not" was in reference to protected free speech. There are a lot of things that people say that I don't like, but it's their right to say it, and if I go after that than I open myself to the loss of things I want to say.
Dictionary definitions, while certainly an excellent way to hone in on communicative debates - does not negate the fact that considering abortion to be murder is an "opinion". it may be an invalid opinion for the purpose of clear definitive debate and specific details of the word - but it is still an opinion.
And one that is protected by free speech.
-
-
I am not right or left...
Abortion is murder...
Feel free to sue me or charge me with a criminal offense...
Abortion is murder...-
Gerry, how do you propose to back that statement up? Not trying to antagonize (unlike you apparently lol) just curious.
-
@Jfinn
"Gerry, how do you propose to back that statement up?"
A fetus is a human being that has been conceived therefore it is a murder to kill the developing human being by abortion...If you have ever looked at the remains of an aborted fetus how could you say that a human being has not been murdered ?
If you do not want children use a condom...
There are 1 million abortions committed per annum in the U.S.A alone not to mention the rest of the world...Pretending abortion is not murder is one of the root causes of this ghastly statistic... -
Gerry;
Again sir, you're not backing up your statement, you're just speaking from feeling without having anything to back it up. I've seen wax dolls that "look" human, it doesn't make them actually, legally people. Your contention that a fetus is a human being simply isn't supported by either the law or current science and therefore the termination of a fetus, no matter the lost potential, isn't murder. -
@jfinn
"you're just speaking from feeling without having anything to back it up."
If a fetus is not a human being then what is it ?
Do you have any children ?
I am not suggesting that we go back to the dark ages of illegal abortions and black market butchery but pretending abortion is not murder is a ridiculous position that promotes abortions... -
"pretending abortion is not murder is a ridiculous position that promotes abortions..."
You said this once before and I ignored it because this is clearly an emotional subject for you, but now I'll reply.
Turning abortion into a black or white political issue where people make their decisions along ideological lines rather than using their own specific circumstance...that's one cause for the large number of abortions.
An education system that refuses to teach real sex ed out of puritanical fears and bully pulpit mentality and thus produces booming teenage pregnancy numbers...that's a very real cause of rising numbers of abortions.
Fear of reprisal for getting pregnant in the first place because you live in a society that has ludicrous views on human sexuality and you have parents that believe in fairy tale deities that mete out arbitrary justice for physical sin....that's a huge cause for the spike in abortions.
Arguing from a point of reason that both the law and the available science disagree with the stance that abortion is murder....well that only affects those inclined to be reasonable in the first place. I don't have to descend into the debate on whether or not a fetus is a human being, the law and the available science tell me that it's not, therefore, to change my mind you need to prove the law and science wrong. Appealing to me as a father or trying to get an emotional rise out of me won't do that; facts will. -
@jfinn
There is no scientific evidence that proves a fetus is not a human being just as there is no scientific evidence that proves a giraffe is not a giraffe...The aborted fetus is certainly scientific evidence that a fetus is a human being...
Perhaps you are on to something...Maybe instead of the word murder we should use words like collateral damage to describe abortion or even better yet abortions are an important economic stimulus that will help stimulate the economy and create jobs... -
"There is no scientific evidence that proves a fetus is not a human being"
No, but there is data to suggest that a fetus is not a human being YET. Potential to become and actually being are two different states of life. For example; I have the potential to allow my arguments to degenerate into puerile name calling and emotional nonsense, however I choose not to so I never achieve that state. You see, choice interrupts and derails potential, but, if I never achieve the potential state, I can't ever be said to have been that thing.
In your analysis perhaps we should call pro life protesters unpatriotic and unconcerned with the economic well being of the nation.
Absurd and beneath the argument.
-
-
www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive
Humor aside, until someone can prove that a fetus less than 28 weeks developed is capable of feeling pain or suffering, their "It's murder!" argument falls short. Here's why:
In a philosophical sense, killing another person is not a crime if that person wants to die. It's an act of mercy (as long as they explicitly state that they want to die). The differences between assisted suicide and murder are consent and net suffering. Murdering someone robs them of their liberty and (usually) makes them suffer.
A first- and second-trimester fetus is not a developed human and is incapable of experiencing pain. Aborting a fetus does not cause any suffering. The fetus does not have a developed enough nervous system to make decisions, so there is no loss of liberty. It's not murder, IMO.
Should pro life organizations be sued? Only if they do something illegal. They're already throwing their money away. -
Libel and Slander are the words we need to look at, not the word Murder.
Did the doctor or clinic lose business in any way b/c of what was said? And were the words untrue?
It has already been mentioned above that the definition of the word murder is that it is "unlawful." Right now abortions are lawful and are therefore not murder. This is a legal technicality, not a moral thing.
To win a case, the doctor or clinic needs to prove libel and slander existed.
Regarding the Right to Lifers, I believe their hearts are in the right place, just like PETA and Greenpeace but I completely object to their actions becoming militant, breaking the law themselves.-
Lizzy;
The legal technicality is all that matters here, we're not getting into the morality of the procedure because that turns into ugly discussions devoid of reason or logic.
All a doctor or clinic needs to do is show that the lie told about them (that murders were committed by them)was provably untrue and damaging enough that it caused their clientele emotional distress. Any damages in a case like that could be purely punitive and have nothing to do with actual financial hardship. Actual damages don't always have to be determined in slander/libel cases, its usually enough (ironically in this case) to talk about "potential" earnings lost. -
Perhaps Canadian law and US law differ a little bit.
I am just recalling what I learned in my college law classes, way back in the dinosaur days. I may have remembered wrong.
Any actual attorneys out there? Please enlighten us~ -
-
-
There is a greater issue here, though. And that is the precedent set by charging protesters with slander and libel, for expressing their opinions.
What does it mean when you can legally charge a person or group of people having a protest with libel or slander? Does it quell free speech? Does it lean towards intimidation and coercion in order to suppress legitimate grievances?
If I put myself into the shoes of the pro-life protesters, I could just as easily be charged with Libel for my blog. Or for the signs I carry at protests.
I'll pass on that - let freedom of speech be free.-
Riiiight...but if real, measurable damage can be proven to be the result of the protesters actions towards the plaintiffs, and within those actions lies an actionable offense, don't the concerns of those being protested against, to achieve a measure of justice, trump the desire of the protesters to have free speech?
That's the problem with the moderate "live and let live, everyone's entitled to their opinion," approach. Past a certain point you have to declare certain opinions wrong and harmful (for example if they're not true and actually cause distress to a segment of the population) or you wind up with a stagnant society that can't form definitive opinions. -
Well, I said it above - but if a group is targeting a specific doctor, and trying to shut down his business through libel or slander - OK.
But on the other hand - I would like nothing more than to see legal action against certain US ex-presidents and politicians - and I often say tremendously horrid things about them - and so do others, and their reputations really are ruined.
Should I be held accountable for libel?
The lawsuits don't get into justifiable libel or slander. They don't step back and say "well these guys deserved it" protecting the ability to speak out against injustices. Ergo, it all has to be allowed. -
Truth is the best defense against libel.
"I would like nothing more than to see legal action against certain US ex-presidents and politicians - and I often say tremendously horrid things about them - and so do others, and their reputations really are ruined.
Should I be held accountable for libel?"
Yes, if what you're saying is both horrible and UNTRUE. There are certain ex-presidents and their administrations that have committed more than enough real atrocities (starts with a B and kinda rhymes with Lush) that to make up new ones for the sake of humor would be redundant at best. If the things you say about them are true, you have nothing to worry about because true things can be proven. If they're not...well, I think you get where free speech falls on my hierarchy of rights when that speech is just asinine. -
Public figures are subject to satire and criticism, Anok. That's where libel and slander conflict with freedom of press, and where rulings tend to side with the press. Whether or not blogs would behave similarly is not known to me at this time, but I speculate that they would.
But you already know that, I'm sure. -
Writing lies on your signs would tip negative words into libel or slander. I what you're alleging is true, Anok, then you're simply being you.
-
Addressing all of the comments at once - that's kind of where the "opinion" part of it comes back into play.
My opinion of certain politicians may or may not be legally valid - but they are my opinion, none the less.
The pro-life opinion of abortions may or may not be legally valid, but it's their opinion, none the less.
Now, if I wrote something in my blog or on my signs that were completely untrue - just way, way out there then yes, Libel and slander could become an issue. Same goes for the pro-lifers. The example I gave above was a sign reading "Dr so-and-so is a convicted murderer" That is blatantly false, and defamatory. And it is very different from saying "Abortion is murder".
Just as my sign that may say "Bush is guilty of war crimes - impeach" is very different from saying "Bush was convicted of genocide".
One is slanderous, the other is conjecture. One type of speech is protected, the other is not.
LOl Legbamel -
"Just as my sign that may say "Bush is guilty of war crimes - impeach" is very different from saying "Bush was convicted of genocide".
One is slanderous, the other is conjecture. One type of speech is protected, the other is not."
Ummm, which one is conjecture and which one is slander? Under international law, Bush DID commit war crimes, he should have been impeached, and he should be tried now. He wasn't convicted of genocide, but that's not so much conjecture as past tense lunacy. That's not slander because the statement doesn't cause any financial harm to Bush, it's not even misinformation it's just weird.
Meh, color me confused -
The war crimes Impeach sign would be conjecture - opinion, whether true, false, or both, it's protected speech. The other sign, stating that he was convicted of genocide is utterly false, and not protected.
Think of it like this - slander and libel work like rumors. Something that is totally false or mostly false that is intentionally spread as an absolute truth of an event or person that causes real harm to said person is slanderous or libelous.
Stating an opinion is not.
-
-
I just say... Its violate the fetus rights to have a chance to see the world. They want to eat ice cream too.-
How do you know what a fetus wants if it is incapable for forming or communicating ideas?
-
err... its a cell, its growing, so its living thing.
-
Ummm, a fetus doesn't even know what ice cream is. And, legally, it has no rights, therefore killing it violates nothing.
"err... its a cell, its growing, so its living thing."
Strep throat is a bacteria, it has cells and it grows. Does it want ice cream? Should I not take antibiotics because it violates the cutesy wutesy little bug's rights to see the world? Form a better argument. -
I heard on the news this morning that some North Dakota lawmakers want to make abortion illegal so they're attempting to pass legislation to that effect. I heard a definition being thrown around that one human cell is enough to declare that something has human rights. I wanted to drive straight to the state capital with my hairbrush (as it would be less gross than a toothbrush) and demand that its rights be met. Good lord, imagine how many rights are being violated when you do laundry, if each cell constitutes a human being?!
I wonder if the newscaster was being facetious. Apparently, 'The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.' Legislators are hesitant to pass it as they know that it will be challenged in court and no one wants to pay for that, least of all me.
-
-
For those who are interested in this issue I would highly recommend reading the original Roe v Wade decision. No matter where you are stand, I think you will find it very informative, especially in how it documents the ancient roots of law and custom dealing with life and when it begins.
www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/ -
Most all abortions are committed for expediency sake - it's a billion dollar industry that profits off of women being used, first by men and then, by the industry that helps her repeat her bad judgments.-
@creemos: I do believe that if they gave out awards for sweeping generalizations you would damn near retire the cup. Astonishing, really.
-
So, women are victims that have no choice and are actually being manipulated by men/abortion docs/satan/Santa etc.?
I think that argument takes away a bit too much of the accountability factor. It's called pro-choice for a reason; you're not supporting abortion itself, you're supporting the ability to CHOOSE whether to have an abortion.
Choice implies thought and decision making capabilities. It's not like these women see commercials every day saying; "Hey, get knocked up and then come let us scrape you to freedom! It's the American way!"
Where is your stat on expediency coming from? Is it just made up on the spot like 68.934578137% of all statistics?
-
-
Can you answer your own question? Truth may be hard to swallow but, it still remains an expedient industry cloaked in "personal rights." Sadly, you are right about one thing... it has become the "American way."
-
Are you really that unaware of how people -- and I mean just plain folks -- can often find themselves in tragic circumstances they didn't ask for, or do you sweep all that aside in favor of making a rhetorical point? If the former, you really need to get out more. If the latter, shame on you.
-
Wow, I'm with Windroot, you really are the master of generalization. Over one third of Americans identify as Evangelical, a further 100 some odd million Americans identify as religious; I'm guessing these people don't believe in or practice abortions. How then is it the American way?
And to quote Inigo Montoya, when it comes to the word "expedient," "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Expedient means effective and efficient. Should a procedure that causes the person getting it distress (albeit most of the time because of outside forces telling her that she should be distressed. And no by outside forces I'm not talking about god, I'm talking about you.) not be effective and efficient? Should the process and the industry by lazy and lethargic? I'm confused by what point you're trying to make. Perhaps if you were more specific...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
