AmericanPapist Comments
You've got the pictures set to private....
"Gee, if you look at the facts, it's Gawker that sure looks stupid. I mean - at least Dawn demonstrates fourth-grade reading comprehension. I'm not sure that I can say the same about Gawker."
Ouch.
I pre-posted the post by accident, it was intended to be released tomorrow morning...
I love the site, but enough is enough. Dawn- sue their butts.
While this was certainly irresponsible, mean-spirited and foolish, I don't know that this would be a successful libel suit. For public figures - which Dawn would almost certainly be since she's a published author, self-identified blogger, and posted the real SAT scores herself - the legal threshold of proving "actual malice" is very, very high. Moreover, you'd also have to prove that mediocre SAT scores cause damage to one's reputation. That may sometimes, but not always, be the case.
Therese, ok, fine, no good lawyer says "this is slam-dunk suit with a guaranteed win". But, come on.
I have no idea whether Dawn oughtta sue, but your objections to a suit strike me as quite thin. For starters, I suggest you revisit the idea of "public figure".
Damage might be remarkably easy to prove, considering the high stakes for graduate and doctoral students.
I bet it's hard to defend a thesis or dissertation when the review board think's you might be a dummy.
...er, "thinks".
(Who's the dummy now?)
man, do they hate her over there!! Just because she has chosen not to have sex. And chosen to write about it. So much for "choice". I mean, the replies are just vicious. I guess I shouldn't be shocked, but I am.
A lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on. - Churchill
Therese: Movie stars have sued, and won, libel suits. I think your definition of "public figure" should be reconsidered, per Mr. Peters.
Ed and Wholly Roamin':
Both of your points are well taken, and appreciated. I'm not a lawyer, just a former journalist who took libel courses in J school...so my actual competency in this area is, well, not much.
But to run down what I understand of libel law (and correct me if I'm wrong): Dawn could very well be a "limited public figure" - that is, a public figure in the area about which the suit is concerned (thus the importance of her first having posted the correct SAT scores herself). If she were found to be a limited public figure, it would trigger the "actual malice" threshold.
Atheling:
Your point is also appreciated. I would simply point out that libel law's definition of "(limited purpose) public figure" and our recognition of a public figure are two separate things. Obviously, public figures can win libel suits - but the law places a greater burden on them than it does on private figures.
Ditto what jenb said. I feel stupid that I am shocked by those horrible comments. I know that these people hold much in contempt. Dawn Eden was just added to the long list. Dawn, I and all here honor you.
why is this tagged with "anti-catholicism"? a gawker story about the forged sat scores of a person who wrote a book about not having sex is no way anti-catholic. claiming so is like crying wolf and lessens the efficacy of claims of real anti-catholicism. the tag should be removed.
Dawn should contact John Domingues. His office is on Rt. 355, either Rockville or Gaithersburg, MD. He will work on comission. He will sue them. He will win.
"Actual malice" is defined as publication of a statement with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
So I think the standard would be met.
Commenting by HaloScan
