A Republican blogger is being sued for libel by a Democrat campaign organizer:
dispute between a self-described “Republican operative” and a former Democratic campaign organizer widely quoted in Minnesota media has turned into a libel lawsuit that could help set legal standards for Internet blogs.
The suit pits Blois Olson, a Democratic public relations executive who is a frequent guest on Twin Cities Public Television’s “Almanac” show, against Michael Brodkorb, a former Minnesota Republican Party employee who operates a political blog — or Web journal — called minnesotademocratsexposed.com.
Olson’s lawsuit, which was served to Brodkorb on Tuesday but has not yet been filed in court, seeks damages of more than $50,000 and a court order forcing Brodkorb to remove from the blog a Dec. 28 posting about Olson and his St. Paul-based public relations company.
I don’t know much about libel laws, but after visiting the website in question (“Minnesota Democrats Exposed“), I think the owner should be sued for having a black background with retina burning yellow text. If that ain’t a crime, it should be.
(Via boing boing)
The Other Steve
As a Minnesotan, I would just like to confirm that Brodkorb is an ass. Republicans up here in the North Star state are so obsessed, they would probably be regarded as unstable personalities by a psychologist. Witness also Captain’s Quarter, Powerline, also Minnesota blogs.
That being said… I’m not sure this lawsuit has a whole lot of validity. But it’s nice to know whose behind the anonymous face that spreads lies about the DFL.
God, that blog is ridiculous. “Today is a great day in the history of Minnesota Democrats Exposed!” He thinks he’s Donald Trump or something.
That yellow on black reminds me of the old, antique computor I used to work on in 1982. The one with the giant floppy disks, when they were still truly floppy. Ouch.
Anyone remember the early AOL commercials where the guy would shoot at the screen with his gun and the little kid would holler at her mother something about Daddy reading about NAFTA again? I get that kind of hit from this guy. :p Barking looney.
A Steelers fan should always salute the use of black and gold even when used so garishly.
As a Boston Bruins fan I must applaud his choice of colors no matter how blinding they may in fact be when used for text.
Does he have the same newspost on that site three or four times in a row? Jesus. That’s entirely too long to read just once.
I clicked here from Armando’s diary at Kos (he agrees with Cole).
Are we seeing a thawing of the great divide? I can only hope so.:
“An accurate headline would read “Dems Defer Filibuster Decision Until After Alito Hearings.” Oh by the way, that seems to me the entirely proper decision. Right now, I agree with conservative John Cole, who said:
I can’t wait for these hearings. In all seriousness, I am leaning towards opposing Alito, who seems to me to be little more than another right-wing statist.”
Thank goodness, we need to break the ice here, folks.
Yeah, I’m sure Armando is “leaning towards” opposing Alito.
My question is, what the hell kind of names are “Blois” and “Brodkorb”?
I’m not going to check out that website — if he’s what you guys say he is, he doesn’t deserve the blog hits.
“Minnesota Democrats Exposed” sounds like a “Girls Gone Wild” thing gone horribly, horribly awry. Like it has photos of a half-naked the Assistant State Commissioner of Agriculture.
The Other Steve
Oh come on, the site is good for a few laughs, and it really does expose just how desperate Republicans have become.
Speaking of which… The GOP Governor up here has decided to become a Green party candidate. That is, he was up at the Ford HQ begging them to turn the Ford Ranger plant into a place to build alternative fuel vehicles, even promising to give them state money to do so… rather than close it.
Oh yeah… he’s one of the top picks for President in 2008, supposedly.
Good thing I have to work late tonight — that image took away my appetite.
“Hot Democrat on Democrat Action!”
“See James Oberstar of Minnesota’s Eighth District Get Down And Dirty!”
“Fourth District Congresswoman Betty McCollum Bares It All!”
The internet is so dirty.
And because someone put me on the subject and I’ve got a dirty mind.
Why can’t American politics be this interesting to follow.
If ever you were wondering, I am a moron–I clicked through despite your warning about the text. I was like, how bright can yellow get on a web page?
P.S. AHH! MY EYES!! IT BURNS!!
P.P.S. FRICKIN *NEON*, that’s how bright…
Okay, I had to check it out, just to see for myself. Thank God I can type without looking, because I CAN’T FUCKING SEE ANYMORE! MY EYES!
Damn, Krista. Now I feel very slightly less stupid. Thank you.
There used to be a kind of underground political literature typed by some paranoid idiot on a broken typewriter in an attempt to warn the rest of us of some hallucinated threat. Back in the eighties, I used to refer to the purveyors of such fine literary endeavors as “samizdolts”.
For some reason, I believed that the species had gone extinct along with the Soviet Union. That web site, though, proves to me that I just wasn’t looking hard enough.
MY EYES! It BURNS!
I am currently being sued by Tom Maguire and Jeff Goldstein. My lawyer has advised me not to comment further on this matter.
What is this Minnesota Democrat Sex Pose? I lived there for ten years (as a Dem) and I never even heard of it. Holding out on me they were…
Add that to my list of blogs that hurt to look at. Bradblog’s another.
Ah, but they have to find you, first.
I’m filing a lawsuit against John for calling me a dick.
I’m confused by this quote from the article: “‘The central question here is whether a court is going to treat a blog as being the equivalent of a news organization,” Kirtley said.'”
Maybe I’m not up on libel law, but do you have to be a “news organization” or its equivalent to be sued for libel? My understanding was that libel was publishing something false/harmful, with “reckless disregard for the truth” or something along those lines. Something put out in book form could be considered libelous, as could a self-published pamphlet, right?. I think the question would be, “Is blogging the equivalent of ‘publishing’?”, wouldn’t it?
I agree Jim, being a “news organization” is not required to have a charge of libel. Publishing is the key word and that is defined simply as communicating the statement to someone other than who it is about. But I think there may be different standards to prove another element of libel and this is fault. There are two ways to show fault:
1)Negligence: failure to exercise ordinary care. A private person must prove this.
2)Actual malice: knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. A public person or public official must prove this.
Ordinary care for a New York Times article is not going to be the same standard for a John Cole comment.
So I think the reference to “news organizations” has more to do with the finding of fault and how much one should expect accuracy from the source rather than the issue of how it was published.
Actually, the yellow on black schema has been shown to be the best color combo for reading text. The brain loves it.
The brain that is prone to migraines, however – does not.
Slide – if we all started filing lawsuits against each other for the name-calling that’s been flung around this site…yikes.
Besides, we have a few lawyers who post here. Don’t give them ideas. :)
you’re right Krista, I’ll let John off the hook. He’s got enough problems being a Republican and all.
How does Pinky feel about it?
Thanks, Slide, that’s pretty much how I understood it.
The bottom line is that Blois (name LOL! were his same sex parents hoping for a girl?) is just flying off on a typical moonbat hissy fit. It’s been confirmed that Humphrey did approach Coleen’s people and they turn him down. After that Blois had some not so nice things to say bout Coleen. Now why would he do that if one of his lackies was trying to get work from the former FBI agent? Humphrey does in factwork for Blois.
After the Coleen Rowley turned down Blois’s boy the Blois himself dumped on her. Now Blois is caught with his pokadot panties down and egg on his face.
Basically it’s pretty darn funny when the Democraps chose to defend those that eat their own.
You may now feel free to change the subject. It’s all liberals ever do.
Blois. What the heck kind of name is that? Were his same sex parents hoping for a girl?
By the way Blois boy Humphrey did approach Coleen’s people. They turned him down and shortly after that Blois started ranting on Coleen.
Yes Humphrey does work for Blois.
Liberals eating there own. Pretty funny and pretty typical.
I’m smelling a business opportunity here…
(Ethics, schmethics, as long as it pays the rent. I don’t ask for much…maybe a small castle on La Côte d’Azur.)
It’s not libel if it’s true.
Not exactly — the most legible color combination is medium yellow on dark blue, giving both stark color and moderate luminance cues to figure boundaries. Most readers find excessive luminance cues to be uncomfortable.
(That’s psychophysese for “OH, GOD, MY EYES!”)
I was waiting for that. :-)
I figured as much. That was a hanging curve right over the heart of the plate.
Oh god, you read my mind…
The Other Steve
Well, MDE is run by a moonbat… So I don’t think you can be Negligent when you are purely incompetent.
However the MDE site is all about malice, so this would be an easy one to prove. Certainly as evidenced by the way the moonbat has responded to the accusations, by further trying to inflame.
I think the question comes down to whether the accusations are correct. I don’t know enough about them, but if it’s a question that a business proposed a contract and was rejected… but then someone affiliated said bad things about the other person, that doesn’t necessarily follow that it is because of the business relationship failure. It would have to be business press releases or something like that. Just noting that there is a difference between personal and professional comments.
The Other Steve
Really, you should have used DemocRATs. It’s just so much more clever.
See, case in point. Two different entities. Just because Humphrey works for Blois, does not mean he speaks for Blois. I don’t know Blois, but I’ve met Buck a number of times and he’s a big boy. He does his own thing.
So it does seem that claiming Blois is responsible because of something Humphrey said is pretty much libel.
I just don’t know if there’s much a court will do about this considering the MDE moonbat website is kind of a joke, and everybody knows that.