Articles Posted in Defamation, Libel and Slander

|

Efforts by an alleged perpetrator and his legal team to unmask a Jane Doe plaintiff (by revealing her name) were held dead on arrival by the Illinois Appellate Court today. Our firm assisted lead counsel Tamara Holder with the appellate briefs. In these types of matters, our firm concentrates on defending alleged sexual assault victims who are allegedly revictimized by being subject to what we advocate, on our client’s behalf, in court papers, are strike suits for defamation or libel. This practice of suing the alleged victim for libel or defamation is, unfortunately, becoming an all too common tactic to, we contend, try to bully them into silence or to retract their claims.

The forceful and well-reasoned concurring opinion by Justice Hyman explains why efforts to expose the names of alleged victims of sexual misconduct or assault is a pernicious practice. The opinion provides guide posts for courts in Illinois and across the country to encourage alleged sexual misconduct or assault victims to seek justice, without having to suffer more trauma due to their names being spread all over the internet. It also notes that the alleged perpetrator should have similar privacy rights prior to a judgment on guilt or innocence.

The concurring opinion states:

In a world where the Internet already has created privacy, confidentiality, and security issues, we now enter the age of artificial intelligence, exacerbating these issues and making secrecy vital. No longer, in famous observation of Justice Brandeis almost 100 years ago, is “right to be let alone” enough. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). In the 21st century, the right to be left unknown will join the right to be let alone as a vexing subject of intense legal debate. Indeed, the question of anonymity has taken on increased significance as court records have become readily available to the general public through even casual Internet searches. As the appellant notes in his brief, a Google search of a litigant’s name can produce an untold number of articles describing the lawsuit. Those articles may be available online for a lifetime, unless kept confidential. Although Illinois case law offers slight guidance on petitions to proceed anonymously, an alleged victim deserves anonymity whether or not their identity has been divulged elsewhere, including in a case not brought by them. …

Although no reported Illinois cases address whether a claim of sexual violence constitutes an “exceptional” situation warranting the use of a pseudonym, federal courts in Illinois have recognized that allegations of sexual assault are “highly sensitive, personal matters that involve the disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy.” Doe v. Cook County, Illinois, 542 F. Supp. 3d 779, 786 (N.D. Ill. 2021); accord Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (while the Seventh Circuit disfavors fictitious names, it has “recognized that sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity” (citing Doe, 112 F.3d at 872)). Even so, a sexual violence allegation alone has been considered not dispositive. See Cook County, Illinois, 542 F. Supp. 3d at 786 (“allegation of sexual assault alone does not end the inquiry”); Doe v. Skyline Automobiles, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 401, 405-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“other factors must be taken into consideration and analyzed in comparison to the public’s interest and the interests of the opposing parties”).

Illinois has taken steps to protect individuals’ private information. Examples include the Personal Information Protection Act (815 ILCS 530/1 et seq. (West 2022)), and the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2022)), and two laws regulating data obtained by artificial intelligence, the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (820 ILCS 42/5 (West 2022)) and the Illinois Health Statistics Act (410 ILCS 520/1 et seq. (West 2022)). Nonetheless, the law cannot keep pace with the speed of innovations, compromising privacy. Corinne Moini, Protecting Privacy in the Era of Smart Toys: Does Hello Barbie Have A Duty to Report?, 25 Cath. U.J.L. & Tech. 281, 299 (2017) (asserting that privacy torts do not provide adequate protection for privacy implications of artificial intelligence and data collection). When methods of intruding into private lives and stripping anonymity outpace lawmakers’ ability to address them, courts have a duty under existing rules of procedure to protect sexual assault and abuse victims.

Plaintiff, a minor when the alleged sexual assault occurred, undeniably constitutes an “exceptional” situation. The lawsuit involves matters of a highly personal nature warranting anonymity. Indeed, Illinois Supreme Court rules acknowledge the need for anonymity in cases involving minors. For instance, the Illinois Supreme Court rules provide that minors shall be identified by first name and last initial or by initials in adoption cases (Ill. S. Ct. R. 663 (eff. Oct. 1, 2001) and appeals involving the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1 et seq. (West 2022)). Ill. S. Ct. R. 660(c) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). Moreover, the Style Manual for the Supreme and Appellate Courts of Illinois (5th ed. rev. 2017) provides for using the minor’s initials in cases involving the Department of Children and Family Services. These rules reflect the need to protect the identity of a minor in matters of a personal nature that involve potentially stigmatizing issues such as termination of parental rights or juvenile criminal conduct.  An alleged victim of sexual violence has similar reasons for protecting their identity when filing a lawsuit under the Gender Act. The alleged conduct involves highly personal conduct likely to embarrass and stigmatize, regardless of its availability on the Internet. Thus, I would find that an alleged victim has a compelling reason to proceed anonymously when filing a complaint. Similarly, an accused perpetrator should be able to seek anonymity on petition….

The appellant contends that Doe waived her right to proceed anonymously because she filed an affidavit supporting a motion to dismiss the defamation lawsuit the appellant filed against his other accusers. (The appellant added Doe as a defendant in the defamation litigation after she filed her complaint.) I must disagree that she waived her right. When Doe filed the affidavit in the defamation case, she had yet to file her complaint against defendant. The decision to help another litigant should not bar an individual from proceeding anonymously in their own lawsuit, regardless of an affidavit in another proceeding. Filing suit creates a different level of exposure than filing an affidavit in support of others.

You can read the entire opinion here. Continue reading ›

|

Here are some important Illinois libel law decisions.

1. “Continental Nut Co. v. Robert L. Berner Co.” (Decided April 15, 1965): A corporation’s libel action complaint, which specifically alleged figures of gross sales before and after publication and that the decrease was the result of the publication, sufficiently alleged special damages, even without naming customers lost.

2. “Fried v. Jacobson” (Decided June 23, 1982, but note that the judgment was vacated on December 1, 1983): It was held that broadcasts which stated that the Internal Revenue Service was considering legal action against an attorney and that 32 suits were filed by the state’s attorney against the attorney and his company were not libel per se. The same case on its later date confirmed that an action for defamation based on libel per se requires that the words used are in and of themselves so obviously and naturally harmful that proof of special damages is unnecessary.

3. “Cantrell v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.” (Decided October 1, 1981): This case clarified the four categories of words which constitute libel per se under Illinois law.

4. “Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson” (Decided July 14, 1983): To allow a corporation to recover on a theory of libel per se under Illinois law, it must show that it has been accused of fraud, mismanagement, or financial instability.

5. “Paul v. Premier Elec. Const. Co.” (Decided March 22, 1984): This case established that under Illinois law, four categories of speech define libel per se.

6. “BASF AG v. Great American Assur. Co.” (Decided April 14, 2008): While not a libel case per se, it discusses the interpretation of an insurance policy that defined an advertising injury as a violation of a person’s right of privacy, which could be relevant in the context of libel .

7. “Costello v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.” (Decided December 15, 1988): This case involved a libel action filed against Capital Cities Media, Inc. and the editor of a newspaper’s editorial page. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action].

Conclusion

These decisions underscore the need to carefully consider the nature of the speech, the status of the individuals involved, and the role of online platforms in defamation cases. While free speech is a cherished right, it must be balanced with protection against false and harmful statements. As libel law continues to adapt to the digital age, these decisions provide valuable insights into the evolving landscape of defamation in Illinois. It is essential for individuals, media outlets, and online platforms to stay informed about these developments to navigate the complexities of libel law successfully. Continue reading ›

|

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and press, but it’s not an absolute right. In the realm of journalism and public discourse, the threat of libel claims looms large. However, Illinois courts have recognized a robust defense known as the “substantial truth doctrine” that provides a shield against libel claims. In this blog post, we will delve into what the substantial truth doctrine means, how it has been applied in Illinois court decisions, and its significance in upholding free speech while balancing the right to protect one’s reputation.

What is the Substantial Truth Doctrine?

The substantial truth doctrine is a legal defense that recognizes that minor inaccuracies or errors in a statement do not make it defamatory if the “gist” or “sting” of the statement is true. In other words, a statement may be protected if the essential truth or core message it conveys is accurate, even if some details are incorrect.

Illinois Court Decisions and the Substantial Truth Doctrine

Illinois courts have consistently upheld the substantial truth doctrine as an essential defense against libel claims. Several key Illinois court decisions have helped establish and refine this doctrine:

Several cases in Illinois have dealt with the substantial truth defense in libel suits. In “Vachet v. Central Newspapers, Inc.”, the newspaper used the defense of substantial truth when they were sued for reporting that the plaintiff was arrested and charged with a criminal offense. The courts affirmed that the reports were substantially true. Similarly, “Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. New York Times Co.” highlighted that truth is a defense to defamation and that a statement that is not technically true in every respect can still be substantially true. The “Republic Tobacco Co. v. North Atlantic Trading Co., Inc.” case and “Sullivan v. Conway” reiterated that under Illinois law, substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation.

The courts in “Rivera v. Allstate Insurance Company” and “Rivera v. Lake County” clarified that a defendant only needs to prove the truth of the “gist” or “sting” of the defamatory material to establish the defense of substantial truth.

Other cases that further explicate the substantial truth defense include “Pope v. Chronicle Pub. Co .”, “All Star Championship Racing, Inc. v. O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.”, “Ludlow v. Northwestern University”, “Rupcich v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 881”, “Kapotas v. Better Government Ass’n”, “Phillips v. Quality Terminal Services, LLC”, “Hollymatic Corp. v. Daniels Food Equipment, Inc.”, “Levin v. Abramson”, “Hoth v. American States Ins. Co.”, and “Pope v. The Chronicle Pub. Co.”. These cases underscore that substantial truth is a complete defense to defamation under Illinois law and that the burden of proving falsity lies with the plaintiff

Continue reading ›

|

Introduction

In an era marked by rapid technological advancements and the omnipresence of the internet, the boundaries of free speech have become more ambiguous than ever before. In the United States, the First Amendment safeguards the freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press. However, this freedom is not absolute, and there are instances where speech can cross the line into libel, damaging reputations and causing harm. To address this evolving landscape, the United States Supreme Court has issued several groundbreaking opinions on libel in recent years. In this blog post, we will explore some of these significant rulings and their implications for free speech in the digital age.

  1. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) – Setting the Standard

Before delving into the recent opinions, it’s essential to understand the foundational case of New York Times v. Sullivan. This landmark decision established a higher standard for public figures to prove libel. To succeed in a libel lawsuit, public figures must demonstrate “actual malice,” which means that the defamatory statement was made with reckless disregard for the truth. This precedent has been pivotal in protecting freedom of speech, ensuring that robust public debate can take place without fear of crippling defamation suits.

  1. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) – Opinions or Factual Statements?

In the case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Supreme Court grappled with the distinction between opinions and factual statements. The ruling clarified that even statements of opinion can be considered libelous if they imply false facts. This decision underscored the importance of fact-checking and journalistic integrity in the world of media and journalism. Continue reading ›

|

In the ever-evolving landscape of the entertainment industry, few legal battles have captured as much attention and controversy as the long-standing dispute between pop superstar Kesha and music producer Dr. Luke. For years, this high-profile libel suit cast a shadow over both artists’ careers and ignited passionate discussions about the complexities of the music industry, artistic freedom, and the pursuit of justice. In this blog post, we will explore the settlement of the Kesha and Dr. Luke libel suit and the implications it carries for the entertainment world.

Background

The conflict between Kesha (born Kesha Rose Sebert) and Dr. Luke (real name Lukasz Gottwald) dates back to 2014 when Kesha accused her former producer of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, which Dr. Luke vehemently denied. In response, Dr. Luke filed a defamation lawsuit against Kesha, claiming that her allegations damaged his reputation and career. This legal battle became a focal point of the #MeToo movement, sparking a broader conversation about the treatment of women in the music industry.

The Settlement

After years of legal wrangling, in February 2021, Kesha and Dr. Luke reached a settlement that put an end to their protracted legal dispute. The terms of the settlement were kept confidential, leaving many unanswered questions about what led to this resolution. While the public may never know the details of the agreement, the mere fact that both parties chose to settle speaks volumes about the complexities of their case. Continue reading ›

|

Bankruptcy allows people and businesses to “discharge” some of their debts. But representatives for the families of the children involved in the Sandy Hook massacre are asking Judge Christopher Lopez to make the settlement money Alex Jones owes them “non-dischargeable.”

The families sued Alex Jones, who repeatedly called the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax on his website and podcast, InfoWars. His rhetoric prompted many of his followers to harass the families and survivors of Sandy Hook, both in person and online. Some families were forced to move to a different neighborhood, and many still do not feel safe as a result of the harassment and death threats to which they have been subject by Jones’s followers.

In the fall of 2022, Jones was ordered to pay close to $1 billion to the families of Sandy Hook for defaming them for years on his website and his podcast. That was after defamation trials in Texas and Connecticut ordered Jones to pay $1.4 billion in damages to the families of 10 victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Continue reading ›

|

People who already have wealth and power are increasingly using defamation lawsuits as a weapon against their enemies. Even when the lawsuits are found to be baseless, they’re still having the desired effect of silencing the plaintiff’s opponents.

Newspapers have increasingly been targeted by defamation lawsuits. While large, national newspapers, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have the resources to fight these lawsuits, small, local newspapers do not.

The Wausau Pilot & Review is a local newspaper reporting on local events in Wausau County, located in north-central Wisconsin. When they got a tip from a reader that someone at the August 12th meeting of the Wausau County board used an anti-gay slur, they acted on the tip and reported on it in their newspaper. Continue reading ›

|

Destroying someone’s reputation is easier than ever. Rather than spreading rumors amongst their friends one at a time, all you need now is access to the internet and you can spread lies and unflattering photos of them all over the world. But just because it’s easy doesn’t mean it’s legal.

One method of online harassment affecting women more than men is former partners posting nude photos and videos of them online when the relationship ends. In one recent case, a woman’s ex-boyfriend created fake email and social media accounts so he could share nude photos and videos of her online.

The woman, who is only listed as D.L. in the lawsuit to protect her privacy, started dating Marques Jamal Jackson in 2016 and was living with him in Chicago in early 2020 when their relationship began to fall apart. According to the lawsuit, the process of ending the relationship was long and drawn out. Continue reading ›

|

You would think someone who has been a public figure for as long as Donald J. Trump has would know what a high bar public figures have to meet when it comes to suing for defamation, especially given the number of defamation lawsuits in which Mr. Trump has already been involved.

Nevertheless, Mr. Trump filed yet another defamation lawsuit against the Cable News Network (CNN) for allegedly comparing him to Adolf Hitler and Nazism.

The statements at the center of the lawsuit include repeated references to Mr. Trump’s “big lie,” meaning his insistence that he won the 2020 presidential election, and Biden and the Democrats cheated to steal the presidency from him. The lawsuit also claims that CNN’s alleged defamation has increased lately amid the network’s fears of Mr. Trump running for reelection in 2024.

Mr. Trump’s defamation lawsuit asked for $475 million in damages, but the case was dismissed by Judge Raag Singhal, who was nominated to the District Court by then-President Trump in 2019.

Singhal pointed out that CNN’s statements about Mr. Trump did not meet the defamation threshold of being false. Singhal denied the conclusion made by the lawsuit that CNN’s statements suggested Mr. Trump supported the persecution or genocide of Jews. Continue reading ›

|

Among the many legal battles involving Donald Trump these days is a recent lawsuit in which Trump sued his niece, Mary Trump, along with the New York Times for reporting on his tax records in 2018. The series of articles accused Trump of engaging in tax schemes and cast doubt on his claims of being a self-made millionaire. The reporting earned a Pulitzer Prize, but Trump alleges it was all part of a plot to uncover confidential records. The lawsuit was filed in 2021 and is seeking $100 million in damages, but the judge dismissed the legal action against the newspaper.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free and open discussion, especially when it comes to public figures. The founding fathers wanted to encourage the public release of information around public figures with the idea that it would give the public access to more information about the people they were electing to represent them.

It’s a critical ingredient to our democratic system, which is why it’s more difficult for a public person to successfully sue for defamation, especially when they’re going up against a news organization. That’s why New York Supreme Court Justice Robert Reed dismissed Trump’s claims against the newspaper, saying they had no basis in constitutional law. He added that the reporting in question was nothing more than routine newsgathering, and as such, is protected by the First Amendment. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design