Lose an election? Two options: bow out gracefully, or...

Grizzly Adams

Graduate Poster
Grizzly Adams
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
1,226
...sue somebody.

When voters in Ohio's 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today's culture: he sued somebody.

Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his "loss of livelihood," Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to sue because you're contesting the results of an election, but it takes a big ol' crybaby whiner to sue someone who opposed you because you lost.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
...sue somebody.


It's one thing to sue because you're contesting the results of an election, but it takes a big ol' crybaby whiner to sue someone who opposed you because you lost.
Click to expand...

Did they lie during the election? Did they engage in libel or slander beyond the limits of political speech? Did they interfere with the election?

What aren't we hearing?
 
There's a huge whopping unsubstantiated claim here, Grizzly Adams. Is there any evidence whatsoever that this lawsuit is motivated by sour grapes (or to "get even") rather than the merits of the suit?

If you recognize that it has merit, then why do you think he shouldn't file suit?

To answer JJ's question, at least this:

http://wyso.org/post/ohio-judge-tosses-anti-abortion-groups-lawsuit

Apparently the question hinges on whether or not political attack ads that lie are susceptible to civil suit for actual damages caused by those lies. In other words, under the guise of political criticism, are lies protected speech?

ETA: Here's the Fox News story on it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ro-life-group-over-campaign-season-criticism/

The original complaint said, "The First Amendment is not and never has been an invitation to concoct falsehoods aimed at depriving a person of his livelihood." A spokesperson for the defendant says, "The claim of defamation is outrageous. Driehaus is a public official, and we should be able to criticize him," successfully defeating a straw man position (since no one ever claimed that you can't criticize a public official; the issue is clearly about real damages caused by telling falsehoods about someone).
 
Last edited:
I wonder if ACORN was ever sued for the same reason.

I guess it doesn't really matter, they've had their day in court already and lost.
 
ProBonoShill said:
I wonder if ACORN was ever sued for the same reason.

I guess it doesn't really matter, they've had their day in court already and lost.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't ACORN sued for the misleading videos, false accusations, and all-around demonization that ensued before they were cut out?

The accusations were shown to be lies and misrepresentations, after all.
 
jj said:
Why hasn't ACORN sued for the misleading videos, false accusations, and all-around demonization that ensued before they were cut out?

The accusations were shown to be lies and misrepresentations, after all.
Click to expand...

Likely because the guy who did it does not have enough money to make it worthwhile. Spending money to drive him into bankruptcy might be nice but not profitable.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
There's a huge whopping unsubstantiated claim here, Grizzly Adams. Is there any evidence whatsoever that this lawsuit is motivated by sour grapes (or to "get even") rather than the merits of the suit?
Click to expand...
According to the article in the OP, the sued organization attacked Driehaus over his vote for Obamacare after the Stupak amendment (which had something to do with abortion) was defeated.

That's as much information as I have at the moment. If anyone has access to the original complaint, let's see it.

Apparently the question hinges on whether or not political attack ads that lie are susceptible to civil suit for actual damages caused by those lies. In other words, under the guise of political criticism, are lies protected speech?

ETA: Here's the Fox News story on it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ro-life-group-over-campaign-season-criticism/

The original complaint said, "The First Amendment is not and never has been an invitation to concoct falsehoods aimed at depriving a person of his livelihood." A spokesperson for the defendant says, "The claim of defamation is outrageous. Driehaus is a public official, and we should be able to criticize him," successfully defeating a straw man position (since no one ever claimed that you can't criticize a public official; the issue is clearly about real damages caused by telling falsehoods about someone).
Click to expand...
Well according to your FoxNews article, the billboards at issue didn't even go up because they were blocked by Ohio's elections board over their accuracy.

Can you sue someone for planning to say something you think is defamatory? Is "conspiracy to defame" actionable?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Well according to your FoxNews article, the billboards at issue didn't even go up because they were blocked by Ohio's elections board over their accuracy.

Can you sue someone for planning to say something you think is defamatory? Is "conspiracy to defame" actionable?
Click to expand...

My isp is giving me troubles this morning, so I haven't been able to find out much. I have found all the documents regarding the now-defunct suit that the Susan B. Anthony List filed against Driehaus: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/SusanBAnthonyListvDriehaus.php

The timing of events is not at all as described in the quote in your OP.

SBA List made statements, radio ads, sent out mailers, and sought to erect billboards with false statements. Under an Ohio election law, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Board of Elections. The Board found enough reason to block the billboards. SBA List sued (Driehaus and the Board) arguing that the Ohio election law (that prohibits false statements) should be struck down. While that suit was going on, the election took place, and Driehaus lost. Immediately after the election, Driehaus withdrew his complaint to the Board.

Activity on the SBA List suit actually increased after the election. In December, Driehaus filed a counterclaim for defamation regarding other statements made by SBA List (press releases, radio ads, mailers AND public statements about the planned billboards).

The defamation charge has a different burden of proof than did the complaint made based on the Ohio elections law, but it is most definitely not as you portrayed it, a "conspiracy to defame" theory.

Meanwhile, the SBA List suit based on the Ohio election law was dismissed, while the countersuit goes forward.

This ABA newsletter has a pretty good summary of the story (PDF file):
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...2011/comm_law_28_1_june_2011.authcheckdam.pdf
 
Last edited:
So, Grizzly Adams, there are several issues here.

Are you opposed to the Ohio elections law that prohibits making false statements? (That's what the SBAList suit was challenging. They believe lobbyists and political campaigns have the right to tell lies, and it's still protected speech.)

If, as Judge Timothy Black ruled, there is significant evidence of false statements that caused damages, do you think it's wrong for Driehaus to sue for defamation? If so, why?

And do you have any evidence that the defamation suit was filed out of petulance or in an attempt to "get even" for losing the election? Or was that just BS someone made up because it sounded like a more sensationalist story?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
According to the article in the OP, the sued organization attacked Driehaus over his vote for Obamacare after the Stupak amendment (which had something to do with abortion) was defeated.
Click to expand...
Yes, the SBAList made false claims about Driehaus' voting record wrt to abortion.

The big issue (with Driehaus' suit anyway) is whether or not political campaign or lobbyist speech acts are protected speech even if the statements are false.

ETA: The ABA newsletter I cited above makes that last statement somewhat more generously (describing SBA List's p.o.v.): "Essentially, SBA List argues that because political views and voting records concern issues where there is wide public controversy and difference of opinion, they could not be considered an attack on the personal integrity or character of a legislature."

I have heard similar arguments made elsewhere. (IIRC, even Politifact--or maybe it was FactCheck.org-- has made statements saying why they wouldn't seek to remove the right of political campaigns to lie and misrepresent their opponents.)
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Anyone who doesn't like lies is clearly not suited to hold political office in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ah, but telling lies and being lied about are two different things!

You don't get far in politics without being a scrappy fighter too.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yes, the SBAList made false claims about Driehaus' voting record wrt to abortion.

The big issue (with Driehaus' suit anyway) is whether or not political campaign or lobbyist speech acts are protected speech even if the statements are false.

ETA: The ABA newsletter I cited above makes that last statement somewhat more generously (describing SBA List's p.o.v.): "Essentially, SBA List argues that because political views and voting records concern issues where there is wide public controversy and difference of opinion, they could not be considered an attack on the personal integrity or character of a legislature."

I have heard similar arguments made elsewhere. (IIRC, even Politifact--or maybe it was FactCheck.org-- has made statements saying why they wouldn't seek to remove the right of political campaigns to lie and misrepresent their opponents.)
Click to expand...


The more immediate issue is the clear conflict presented by the assignment of Judge Black to this case. He should have recused himself from both actions.
 
sarge said:
The more immediate issue is the clear conflict presented by the assignment of Judge Black to this case. He should have recused himself from both actions.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but it's not the issue wrt the claims made in the OP as to the motivation for Driehaus's suit.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Maybe so, but it's not the issue wrt the claims made in the OP as to the motivation for Driehaus's suit.
Click to expand...

That is why I was careful to differentiate between the big issue and the immediate issue. The big issue is what the case is about, the immediate issue is whether or not the case should proceed with this judge. The immediate issue can be resolved without impacting the final resolution of the big issue.
 
sarge said:
That is why I was careful to differentiate between the big issue and the immediate issue. The big issue is what the case is about, the immediate issue is whether or not the case should proceed with this judge. The immediate issue can be resolved without impacting the final resolution of the big issue.
Click to expand...

Has the defendant made a motion for a change of venue? I have yet to find any of the actual documents for the defamation case--only the earlier case challenging the Ohio law.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
My isp is giving me troubles this morning, so I haven't been able to find out much. I have found all the documents regarding the now-defunct suit that the Susan B. Anthony List filed against Driehaus: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/SusanBAnthonyListvDriehaus.php

The timing of events is not at all as described in the quote in your OP.

SBA List made statements, radio ads, sent out mailers, and sought to erect billboards with false statements. Under an Ohio election law, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Board of Elections. The Board found enough reason to block the billboards. SBA List sued (Driehaus and the Board) arguing that the Ohio election law (that prohibits false statements) should be struck down. While that suit was going on, the election took place, and Driehaus lost. Immediately after the election, Driehaus withdrew his complaint to the Board.

Activity on the SBA List suit actually increased after the election. In December, Driehaus filed a counterclaim for defamation regarding other statements made by SBA List (press releases, radio ads, mailers AND public statements about the planned billboards).

The defamation charge has a different burden of proof than did the complaint made based on the Ohio elections law, but it is most definitely not as you portrayed it, a "conspiracy to defame" theory.
Click to expand...
Slow down and read. Instead of using my "conspiracy to defame" comment in a manner it was not intended (it was clearly in reference to the fact the billboards referenced in your article never appeared), how about you engage in a dialogue that doesn't involve inventing garbage about my statements? 'Kay?

Now, you claim SBA made false statements. I have yet to see evidence they were false. The election board decided there was "probable cause" to believe they were false, but that is a standard far below "false." In fact, there are arguments that would seem to indicate the statements are true. This looks more like a difference of opinion than a true/false situation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom