53.0°F Fair [Forecast]
:: Friday, November 20th, 2009Cape & Islands News
The ideal newspaper should be "irreverent, rash, feisty, and really care." - Jim BellowsDedicated to providing the best carpet services for your home and business. To save you time and money, we will come to you! Choose from a vast array of colors, styles and manufacturers and see how they actually look in your home or business. (Sandwich)
Fully licensed and insured arborist providing expert affordable tree removal and services including trimming, disease control, fertilizing and planting. Over 20 years experience on Cape Cod. (Barnstable)
Defamation suit filed against CC Today blogger, commenter
Defamation lawsuit filed against Cape Cod Today blogger, commenter
By James Kinsella
A Barnstable resident and his attorney have sued investigative blogger Peter Robbins and an anonymous commenter for defamation.
In a case filed in Barnstable Superior Court, Joseph F. Dugas of Sunset Lane and his attorney, Paul Revere III of Centerville stated that in the wake of a March 11 posting by Robbins on Cape Cod Today and a subsequent comment by a person writing under the name of "noggin," Dugas and Revere had "suffered damage to their reputations, businesses and employment, and sustained emotional distress."
Dugas and Revere are seeking a trial by jury and compensatory damages.
A legal memorandum in response, filed with the court by attorney Peter B. Morin on behalf of Robbins, states, "This matter is a textbook example of the justification for an anti-SLAPP statute that protects the right of individuals to comment on matters of significant public concern."
Dugas and Revere are suing Robbins and the commenter, which the lawsuit identifies as "John Doe," for a blog that the lawsuit states Robbins posted around March 11 about Barnstable Harbor, and for a subsequent comment about that post.
Blog took issue with dredging appeal
In the blog, Robbins criticized a group of residents who had appealed a order of conditions issued by the Town of Barnstable Conservation Commission, and gone on to appeal a superseding order of conditions issued by the state Department of Environmental Protection. The orders set conditions for the town's planned dredging of Barnstable Harbor.
"In my opinion this, NIMBY, frivolous, malicious action is doing nothing but stalling the inevitable and costing us the taxpayers unnecessary time and money," Robbins wrote.
"....So when you run aground this summer, or bend that prop trying to get in or out of Barnstable Harbor at low tide," he wrote, "these are the people who are costing you..."
He went on to name the people who had backed the appeal, among whom were Dugas.
The defamation lawsuit states the residents who filed the appeal acted in good faith over concerns about the dredging. The lawsuit also faulted Robbins and the commenter over words the plaintiffs said were used to describe Dugas and Revere.
Speaking of the blog and subsequent comment, the lawsuit states: "The statements are false and were published in writing. The written publication of untrue statements by each of the defendants constitutes libel per se. The statements tend to harm the reputations of the plaintiffs as to lower them in the estimation of the community and to deter persons from associating with them."
Dredging settlement reached, defamation lawsuit followed
On March 21, the plaintiffs and residents who had been involved in the dredging appeal settled with the town and the state DEP. Under the settlement agreement, the appeal was dismissed and the dredging was permitted to go forward, subject to the terms of the agreement.
On July 7, the defendants filed their defamation lawsuit against Robbins and the anonymous commenter.
In a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Morin states that neither plaintiff has provided factual basis for their claims that they were damaged; that Robbins's blog post is protected by the right of petition; and that a court couldn't conclude that Robbins's opinion lacked factual or legal basis.
Morin further questions why neither Dugas nor Revere revealed to Robbins that the case had been settled 34 days before Revere got in touch with Robbins to complain about the March 11 blog post.
In the memorandum, Morin states that Revere subsequently got in touch with Walter Brooks, publisher of Cape Cod Today, and asked that certain phrases and sentences be deleted from the post. Brooks did so.
Morin's motion to dismiss is scheduled for a hearing in superior court on Sept. 16.
18 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.
The death of honest blogging.
(The phases we deleted with the writer's permission were gratuitous and did not effect the points or meaning of his post. -The Editors)
I'm sure once the story broke, boat owners we're p!ssed, demanded repaírs and what better way to make those repaírs but to seu and let someone else pay. All harbors should bé in good condition, not just this one. I can think of one with a slanted ramp... Impossible to mount your boat back on the tràiler. People waiting in the hot sun for up to any hour or more. They múst make a ton on the slips...where does it all go?
For good reasons or bad ones, Brooks has editorial standing over all blogs. Unless it can be demonstrated that he deliberately and maliciously tampered with critical evidence, his editing activities are protected by his job description.
There is a powerful movement from the Left to curtail speech from the Right. Talk shows are the primary targets. But this is a mini-example of the same thing. Consider this when you vote. Speech has been restricted on campus for years. Intimidation does the same job in films. Free thinkers are under attack.
Move on, bloggers. Opinionate as you please. This is still the U.S. And Brooks will continue to edit as he damn well pleases -- which is as it should be.
The next one she posts we will remove her ability to comment further.
The Editors
First we see people murdered overseas because of a published cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb sticking out of his head, now we see what may be an attempt here on the Cape to stifle or punish criticism of local civic actions undertaken by certain residents.
I believe it would be best for the plaintiffs to quietly back off on this one. The only damage to their reputation that I see so far is their filing of this lawsuit.
An unexpected error has occured!
If this error persits, please report it to the administrator.