Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) stated the following on Sept. 10, 2009 (I think on the House floor, but I can’t confirm that):
In a Sept. 25th Op-Ed posted to his website, Mr. King says:
Both quotes were taken from Mr. King’s web site. Bolding is mine.
As far as I know ACORN, as an organization, has not been charged with or found guilty of any crimes, nor even seriously investigated in any criminal matter. It would seem to me that Congressman King’s use of the phrase “criminal enterprise” is slanderous/libelous. So, I guess my questions for the legal types are as follows:
[ul]
[li]Does this phrase, “criminal enterprise,” used in this manner, rise to the level of libel/slander?[/li][li]Is there anything about Mr. King’s status as a Congressman that affords him any protection that you or I as a private citizen do not have?[/li][/ul]
If I am incorrect as to ACORN’s status regarding criminal charges, than that changes things, but assuming I am right can we stick to the slander/libel question, and try and keep the political discussions as to whether or not ACORN is evil out of things?
I assume that there is no definitive answer to this, so I put it here. Mods, feel free to put it somewhere else if you think it more appropriate.
Not sure about the legal side of things, but it’s interesting that “functions both as a criminal enterprise and a self-contained economy” applies much more aptly to Goldman Sachs and other banks and insurance conglomerates. And while they’ve collectively received $12 trillion in loans and bailouts over the past year, ACORN has received $54 million since 1994. But ACORN’s the threat to democracy for Rep. King :rolleyes: .
Probably not, as ACORN status as a nonprofit organization necessarily places them in the public eye, and thus makes them a target of public criticism.
Yes, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6) though recent jurisprudence indicates this privilege is by no means absolute.
I think that ACORN would have to show damages, and King would probably try to use the petty scams pulled off on ACORN by temp workers as a fig leaf to defend his words as having (in his mind) some kind of tortured, extropolative truth value.
IANAL and this is a vague recollection but IIRC you do not have to prove actual damages in a slander/libel suit. If your reputation is damaged you get to collect. How they determine damages I am not aware of but, say, you call me a pedophile do I have to show damages for that? How would I?
If nothing else I suppose ACORN could claim they are losing, on average, $3.5 million/year in Federal aid. How many years can you count that up?
In the end though slander is a tough one to make stick in the US. Since ACORN is a company and in the news I would expect they get less protection than you or I would as non-public private citizens (as opposed to a movie star…public eye and all that jazz).
I believe that many (most?) defamation statutes provide for the recovery of some minimum amount of money – on the order of a few hundred dollars) – without having to prove actual damages.
I’m not sure the federal aid money would count, because I think they would have to prove that the withdrawal of that money was tied to King’s remarks (as opposed to Breitbart’s video).
Yes, at least as far as concerns any statement made on the House floor. Legislators have a common law defense of privilege to defamation suits for statements made on the floor of the legislature.