There are many tunes to a song and there are many ways to shut people up or give them the message, "Don't get involved." Behind the tune is a creative genius or a talent and behind the latter is a thug (or a goonda as he is referred to in India). Being a thug or a goonda is basically a personality trait but the expression of that trait can change with the means especially money and connections. And education may make a difference in that expression for "society produces rogues and education makes one rogue cleverer than another.

Position matters, too. A president can try to shut you up with the help of the secret service. If you are a band and if you oppose his actions or speak out against them openly or simply try calling a spade a spade, your songs may be bumped off radio stations. Some leaders have perfected hounding tactics and they do use them to try and get things done. If you are beginning to feel that democracy is suffocating, you may be wrong - it may be dying out. Let's take the example of Tom Diehl.

"With a meticulous eye to detail, Tom Diehl did his homework. He immersed himself in the regulatory minutiae of trash. He pored over environmental studies. And after publicly stating his case against a proposed garbage holding pen in his suburban St. Louis community, he won.

What Diehl did not anticipate was getting sued for his civic activism. The trash company has filed a $5 million libel and slander suit, alleging Diehl's and other opponents' characterization of the firm as "trash terrorists" suggests the company has killed Americans and intends to kill more.

In a nation of sometimes-outrageous talk, where nothing is more American than speaking out at a public hearing, attorneys who follow defamation suits say the number of defamation claims against individuals who do speak out is growing. Politicians are suing citizens as well as other politicians. Businesses seeking approval of development projects are suing people who oppose them.

Attorneys who follow the suits say the trend resembles Goliath pummeling David: People with the means to sue are filing suit against individuals who don't keep lawyers on retainer.

While most cases are eventually dismissed or dropped, the financial liability implications from these lawsuits may make people think twice before they testify at hearings or otherwise get involved in public debates.

"We've seen a run-up in these cases, often by fairly powerful businesses seeking to muffle or stifle public participation," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center in Chicago.

"If you're a big company it doesn't cost a lot of money to file a lawsuit and it sends a message, and that is `Don't get involved,'" Learner said (By Tim Jones Tribune national correspondent). The fact is, it is possible to terrorize an individual with a lawsuit in view of the financial implications involved in defending it.

The case involving Diehl, 48, is a clash of 1st Amendment speech--even hyperbolic--versus the right of individuals and companies to protect their reputations against false and malicious attacks. Tom Diehl believes, "They're suing me to take away my right to be a citizen."

The law suit probably hinges on the expression "trash terrorist", an expression that might not have been in vogue and not used at all if 9/11 had not occurred. Tom might have been merely vocal in using an expression that would attract and catch interest rather than one aimed at defaming the trash collector. Which way will the court lean? Will the court accept it as a mere expression that is rooted in marketing communication without any other basis or one that squarely falls in the ambit of defamation?

The latter will certainly entertain the idea of curtailing expression in a democratic society and the art of creative communication not forgetting the fact that "terrorist" is a term that is not easily defined in law and there may be no authority to cite a case on point. The company's lawyers come under a burden to prove for a fact that the expression Tom Diehl used was intended to defame through a false and malicious attack and had no other purpose. It comes across quite clearly that Tom had other purpose as perceived from his campaign and legal action in a court of law. They also have to labor to prove and convince the Court that "people might believe its employees are working for a terrorist organization." That might be a rather daunting task given the general idea of a typical "terrorist organization" in the wake of 9/11.

Then there is another point for a court to rule on - Are ordinary men of ordinary intelligence or civic activists who use ordinary and current expressions to make a point or to be heard, open to the same standard of scrutiny as persons trained in law?

For those who think quietly that such law suits are nothing more than conspiracy to shut people up or aimed to kill civic activism so dearly nurtured by a fierce democracy aimed to benefit society and to hold organizations more accountable and responsible will be eagerly looking forward to hear the arguments on Monday in the Missouri Court to find out if The Ist Amendment will prevail or will democracy be changed in America. The aroma or the stink of the decision will be in the air soon after.


Original Link: http://www.independent-media.tv

Thanks for the post. I believe there is something like this happening from our "pals" at Sinclair. They are vowing to take legal action against anyone they perceive as engaging in something they are calling "trade defamation".

http://sinclairaction.com/

Tort reform anyone?

Tort reform as Bush and his camp has proposed would make big corps totally unaccountable and able to shun their responsibility. Capping awards at the ridiculously low amount they have proposed, would give corps free reign to be reckless. These capped amounts wouldn't even put a ding in the bottom line of these corps, allowing them to avoid any punishment and continue in the wrong doing. This measure would disempower regular Americans to take any effective action against a negligent big corp or doctor.

What tort reform do you propose?

A real one. Tort reform shouldn't be about limiting legitimate claims, which is what Bush is trying to do to protect big business and the insurance industry. I want real tort reform: no friggen frivolous lawsuits - including one's meant to intimidate, which is something big business (this sinclair action) and rich families do all to frequently. Bushie would never allow it of course, but I can dream right?