Legal Ramifications (Part 2)

As we continue to analyze the situation at the LA Times and Chuck Philips article, I'm considering what the legal repurcussions will be. Yesterday I considered the basic conditions of a defamation suit, today we look at the defenses and possible outcomes of the case. If you missed part 1, check it out here!

---

The next matter to examine within defamation cases is the defense. The courts automatically accept the truth as a defense; however in this case it has already been proven that the truth is not what was reported. The next option for the Times is to argue that because of Rosemond’s reputation as a criminal (he does have a record for drug offenses) the story doesn’t damaged his persona anymore. While this is a likely argument Rosemond’s criminal acts are in his past and unless proven otherwise he has become a successful business man. Regardless of the many accusations levied against Rosemond over the years (his history in the streets is constantly questioned and analyzed) he is still innocent until proven guilty and the only crime he has been proven guilty of is one for which he has served his time. The last defense is that the speech is privileged, but this doesn’t apply to this case.

Proving libel per se automatically grants you damages – but facts can be introduced to enlarge or lower the amount in which those damages are. These monetary damages are determined by a jury. While specific damages are unlikely, Rosemond has continued his business since the story with little to no interruption, general damages – those which relate to the seriousness of the defamation and how much harm was inflicted by the defamatory act. Lastly there are punitive damages which serve as punishment to the defamer when the libel is particularly harmful.

I’m not a lawyer; however Rosemond and his attorney have both stated they intend to take full legal action whether it be civilly or criminally. As I’ve outlined here he is positioned best to have a case of libel per se. If Philips story had held up and not been discredited I would say that the case would be unlikely to proceed, however since it has come out that the documents were forged the accusations made from them become that much more dangerous and libelous.

As I reported in my analysis of what went wrong with this article I pointed out that a lawyer could have, and almost certainly should have, looked at what was being reported and what the facts were. The Times has hindered their defense in admitting that a lesser number of editors than normal reviewed the story and I do believe that Rosemond has a very good case of proving libel per se.

---

This article couldn’t have been possible without the assistance of this book:

Herbeck, Dale A. and Thomas L. Tedford. Freedom of Speech in the United States: 5th Edition. 2005. State College, Penn.: Strata Publishing, Inc.