Izzy, I agree that U.S. libel rules are overly favorable to the media, but the problem isn’t what you suggest. The fact that the video doesn Sharpton a “disservice” is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong at all with publishing news that harms the individual the news was about. Indeed, that’s one of the positive things the media can do - remember Watergate? Woodward and Berstein’s reporting did a whole lot of disservice to a lot of Administration officials. A bunch of them ended up in jail.
wring, I agree that in some instances there can be monetary damages that come out of a damaged reputation, as in your example. But I don’t think that is what Sharpton is suing for, and I don’t think that is the only thing you can sue for. The very fact that his reputation is besmirched is a negative - many people would not want to have to live with this even if it did not impact them financially.
I agree with you that his career is not likely to suffer as a result of this broadcast - if anything it gives him another boost. This, because, as you say, those that are with him are with him anyway. (This is part - or all - of the reason for his lawsuit, IMHO - to rally his followers against those that are “out to get him”.) Nonetheless, it is true that he has been attempting to mainstream himself in recent years, as his power and influence has grown (and he sees opportunities in the Jesse Jackson corporate-extortion racket). There are many people in the middle who are somewhat inclined to see him in an increasingly sympathetic light, and he could be harmed in their eyes. (Plus, there are a lot of people who look more askance at drug dealing than they do at racial rabble-rousing).
Sua, I don’t think Sharpton should be able to sue someone for publishing news that is harmful to him. But in this case, it would seem that it is misleading information. Personally, I don’t think the fact that someone nodded and said “I hear ya” to a proposed drug deal is any indicator that the guy was seriously contemplating doing the deal - I might do the same myself if a guy made me such an offer. And the fact that ultimately he did not go along, and was not arrested seems to indicate that he wasn’t planning to do it. By presenting the tape as an indication that he was, HBO was doing Sharpton a disservice.
Having said that, even in a perfect IzzyR world, I would not have people suing over interpretations of tapes - this is opinion. But Sharpton is alleging that HBO edited the tape to make it look even more misleading. This is a factual claim - either true or untrue - I don’t know if is true or not. If it is true, I would think he should be eligible for damages, but is not, due to libel laws. (If HBO altered the tape they would be liable. But - as I understand it - if they merely chose to play part of it, or one of two tapes, they are off the hook).
This is probably not true in the United States. You have an absolute right to publish the truth regarding “public persons”, and even with respect to nonpublic persons the ability to sue for breach of privacy is extremely limited. Some states, e.g. California, have identified narrow areas of information that cannot be disclosed, but even then usually some sort of independently wrongful behavior (a breach of confidence or other wrongful conduct such as theft or trespass) is required to sustain a suit. In the instant case, if you found out about Bob’s crossdressing without committing any independent wrong (that is, you did not sneak into his underwear drawer, or bribe his therapist into telling you about it), you would be free to publish it to the world, without fear of legal retribution.
I agree with minty green. I remember from school that the plaintiff having a reputation that is so poor that it cannot be harmed IS a defense to defamation. In this case, though, it sounds like the fact that it’s true would be a more appropriate defense. There’s also a higher burden of proof for people who are considered “public figures” to show defamation, I believe.
