DNC Threatens Free Republic and XM Radio (UPDATED)

A couple of days back, a Free Republic poster named 'coffee260' repeated something he had heard on the XM Radio broadcast of Quinn & Rose: that DNC Chairman Howard Dean had allegedly

called Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius [D] early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response to the aftermath...[SNIP]

and that

she confessed to [Senator Sam Brownback, R] that she had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for the lack of immediate response.

Because of this post, Free Republic (and XM Radio) have each received a cease-and-desist letter from the DNC's legal representation stating that

The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons, we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original story appeared.

Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you intend to comply with these requests.

Well. Does the DNC have a case? Powerline's Scott Johnson says 'no' and refers to the author of the letter, DNC' attorney Joseph Sandler as "a thug representing a bunch of reprobates and bullies" to boot, because

Under the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard to whether they are false or not.

As this situation becomes known, repeated and linked to, one wonders whether the DNC legal assistants will be in overdrive as it hands out cease-and-desist letters all around the blogosphere (at least to the conservative side).

I'm not a legal sort, but if I were a mover/shaker in the DNC, I'd fire this guy Sandler, as this move is bound to backfire on the organization which he represents. It's a shot in the foot, for sure and likely one borne of the enmity created by the exposure of the bogus Bush AWOL gambit which began its destruction when Free Republic denizens first put a magnifying glass to it.

Mindless anger makes one less likely to think things through, but, to paraphase whoever, when your ideological opponent shoots himself in the proverbial foot, simply stand back.

(Thanks to Instatpundit)

HELP GREENSBURG REBUILD: Green for Greensburg via the United Way

UPDATE: The DNC gets sued in its turn for a separate matter.

[For] defamation and discrimination by a former employee - claiming among other things that Dean discriminates against gays and violated the “D.C. Human Rights Act”

Comments

[Brian H]

No, no! Don't stand back -- egg him on, taunt and tease, torment and disparage! Keep The Anger Rollin'! Remember the outraged objections to the accusation that Danny Boy had Deceived? And what happened?

Heh. Time to get Sandler et al spitting nails, IMNSHO.

[blogs4God]

Excellent point about the damages of mindless anger.

Personally, I wouldn't fire the guy - but I would have him working in a back room w/no phone nor internet access - probably opening letters and/or sweeping the floors.

[Tully]

I loved Powerline's response. "Sue us!"

Kind of a "Go ahead, make my day" thing.

[negronova]

I don't understand the response and I wonder if it will work or not.

To go this route, I think they would know they are on firm footing.

[baldilocks]

Ed,

You're assuming that the DNC's legal representation has thought its response through and researched precident.

That used to be a reasonable assumption for professionals but, these days, it isn't.

[negronova]

True.

I don't think Howard Dean is dumb. Applying this level of a heavy hand, to me, has to suggest good grounds. Or that the effort will provide a good boost in donations.

[Tully]

The "good grounds" are a simple attempt to bully the story out of the public eye. Though hoping for a boost in donations from indignant grandstanding is certainly a potential.

The Freeper accurately relayed what he heard on the broadcast--making that simple factual reportage on his part. "Malice" (the key element with public figures) on his part is irrelevant unless he personally knew the story was false, as he correctly reported the broadcast. He heard "x" and repeated that he had heard "x." And a broadcast service that simply carries a syndicated show isn't responsible for the content.

The only real potential liability lies with the Quinn and Rose show itself as the point of origin, and if they're honestly reporting what has been related to them by a reliable source, they're likewise not liable. They're reporting on the words of a source.

The DNC is trying to SLAPP people into line. Had they sent a cease and desist to Quinn and Rose, that would be (somewhat) legit. Thin-skinned, but legit. Instead they went after others to attempt to silence them. That speaks very poorly of them.