RSS

Monthly Archives: March 2013

Cadeflaw’s Gary, IN School Project’ – Michael’s Heart

Vanessa Littles Gary IN School Project photo landscape (400x171)This cause was created to promote and support schools in the city of Gary, IN. Michael Jackson is the inspiration for the Anti-Defamation Legacy Law Advocates and the revelation to reach out to the schools in Gary, IN was given to Vanessa Little, Research Director of the group. Our goal is to bring happiness to children in the community of Gary, IN, where Michael Jackson was born and raised until his family left to pursue a career in the entertainment industry.

We believe that Michael would want us to remember his roots. Roots should always be nourished, though they branch out. Cadeflaw is 100% in favor of this project and we will do everything we can to make this initiative one of success. Why our choice of schools are in the city of Gary, simply put, Michael Jackson. He is the inspiration for the Cadeflaw Advocates Group.

Cadeflaw’s mission is to have an “Anti-Defamation Legacy Law” authored and passed, but while we strive to do that we want to first be givers and think about the needs of others; especially children. Cadeflaw gives regular donations to different organizations monthly, but we’d like to have one called our very own, other than the Cadeflaw initiative. We now have the Cadeflaw Gary, IN School Project of which we also call the “Butterfly Project”.

We hope that many others will join us in this effort.  In Michael’s heart the welfare of ALL children could be found , no matter where. We think he would consider this an honor and a blessing for us to reach out to the children of Gary.

Where there is LOVE, Michael IS there. Let us be there, too. Much LOVE.

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Butterfly Playground Equipment Campaign 2013

Every Penny CountsClimbing, jumping and running in a structured playground environment can encourage children to become physically fit, help them overcome fear and show them what their bodies are capable of achieving. Playtime is a vital part of a child’s growth and development and the groundwork for skills that children need as adults, such as creative thinking, reasoning and socialization, may begin on a swing set or a rock wall.

The students recently moved into a newly renovated building, for school term 2012-2013. There are no flowers, trees or playground equipment for the younger children. This is a K-7th all girls’ school located in a very poverty stricken community of Gary, Indiana.

In spite of these circumstances the students continue to excel because of the principal, Pearl Prince and the teachers. That label is being peeled away and these educators celebrate the success of these children. The educators’ approach is to teach the children beyond what is expected and it has been successful.

The students have maintained excellent academic goals throughout the years because of their Principal, Pearl Prince and the teachers who sincerely care. Mrs. Prince has not allowed the children’s socioeconomic status to affect how they learn and how they see themselves. We want to support the vanguards of this school, financially, in their quest to give these children an even greater advantage to achieve their goals.

Commemorate Michael Jacksons Birthday 2013There are only a few of us although we are spread out, globally. Already, we have been able to donate $2000 toward the purchase of a mobile Panasonic Interactive Smart Board for this school and just a few weeks ago, along with another group, donated $750+ for school uniforms and more technology equipment. This is an ongoing effort and we would like to engage as many people or organizations as possible.

We sincerely would like to provide or assist further by placing playground equipment on the grounds for the little ones. We’ve initiated a fundraising campaign to purchase playground equipment and have it on property by August 29th of this year; and of course we don’t have much time.

However, we intend to keep campaigning pass August 25, 2013, if necessary.

Special Campaign for Playground Equipment

How to give/donate:

YouCare Butterfly Playground Equipment Fundraiser

Make Donations via Website

Cadeflaw PayPal: info@cadeflaw.com

Donations can be mailed to:

FRANKIE WOODS MCCULLOUGH GIRLS’ ACADEMY
C/O: Pearl Prince, Principal
3757 West 21st Avenue
Gary, IN 46404

Phone: (219) 944-7301
Fax: (219) 944-4865
PPrince1@garycsc.k12.in.us

Make check/money order payable to:
Frankie McCollough PTO

Total cost of playground system is $30,000.00

Playsystem: $13,995.00
Installation: $6,600.00
Borders/Surfacing: $9,400.00
TOTAL COST: $30,000.00

FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION, BORDERS AND SURFACING COST PLEASE CONTACT:

Mike Catchur – Kidstuff Playsystems Representative

dba OMC Solutions

Kidstuff Playsystems

5400 Miller Avenue, Gary, IN  46403

Cell: (219) 771-3540

800-255-0153

Fax: (219) 938-3340

Email: mcatchur@yahoo.com

Website:  http://www.kidstuffplaysystems.com/

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Deceased Victims of Slander/Libel/Exploitation (3)

Whitney Houston – Recording Artist

Whitney HoustonWhitney Elizabeth Houston (August 9, 1963 – February 11, 2012) was an American recording artist, actress, producer, and model. In 2009, the Guinness World Records cited her as the most awarded female act of all time. Houston was one of the world’s best-selling music artists, having sold over 200 million records worldwide.

She released six studio albums, one holiday album and three movie soundtrack albums, all of which have diamond, multi-platinum, platinum or gold certification. Houston’s crossover appeal on the popular music charts, as well as her prominence on MTV, starting with her video for “How Will I Know“, influenced several African American female artists to follow in her footsteps.

Tabloid fighting “defamation” since photos of Whitney Houston in her casket were released.    Publishing the Whitney Houston casket photo on its tabloid cover has backfired on theNational Enquirer. The publication has a new battle on its hands now that a big name celebrity has claimed they did the same thing to her father.

Whoopi Goldberg said recently on The View, “when my dad passed away, they ran his picture on the cover of the Enquirer…!”

LA DJs Suspended

LA Radio Host – Long History of Bigotry

John & Ken (Listen to Audio)

 

Trayvon Martin

Trayvon MartinTrayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012) was the son of Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, who were divorced in 1999. He was a junior at Dr. Michael Krop High School and lived with his mother and older brother in Miami Gardens, Florida.

Trayvon Martin, a high-school junior from Miami who was visiting family in a gated community in Sanford, was shot to death last month when he encountered George Michael Zimmerman, captain of the neighborhood-crime-watch group.

People in Central Florida and beyond want to know how an unarmed 17-year-old who went to a nearby 7-Eleven for a bag of Skittles never made it home alive. Join Orlando Sentinel Reporters Bianca Prieto and Martin Comas for a live chat about Trayvon Martin on Thursday, March 15 at noon.  Live Chat Replay: Discuss the Trayvon Martin shooting

The targets don’t actually use Martin’s face but the intent is clear: They show a silhouette of a person in a hoodie with Skittles protruding from his pocket and a can of ice tea in his hand.   Man Sells Trayvon Martin Shooting Range Targets

hoodietarget_blogA shooting range target of a person in a hoodie with cross hairs on the chest, a bag of Skittles tucked in a pocket and a hand holding a can resembling iced tea was pulled from an online sales site, a Florida TV news station reports, but not before raising concerns of its connection with teen shooting victim Trayvon Martin.

Martin was wearing a hoodie and had just purchased Skittles and iced tea when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, according to police reports. Report: Trayvon Martin gun range targets were sold online  Huffington Post Article – Trayvon Martin Gun Targets   Trayvon Martin Shooting Range Targets Sold Out in Two Days  Daily Kos

It’s not clear when the hoodie became available, but a red seal labeled “new” alerts visitors to the store that the sweatshirt is a relatively recent arrival. NRA Hooded Sweatshirt   NRA Store

Michael Jackson – Most emotionally battered personality in the “World’s” media outlet before and after death.

Michael & PuppyMichael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer songwriter, entertainer, dancer, arranger, music producer, choreographer, actor, businessman, musician and philanthropist. Often referred to as the “KIng of Pop”, or by his initials MJ. Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time by Guinness World Records. His contributions to music, dance, and fashion, along with his publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture for over four decades. Michael Jackson

Since June 25, 2009, there have been many wonderful and loving tributes to Michael Jackson. There have also been unkind, untrue, and hateful references to Michael. Protecting and preserving the truth is the reason for this initiative.

We are disgusted and frustrated with the amount of rubbish that continues to be paraded as fact about Michael Jackson. In looking for a way to stop the flow of distortion, we learned that there is nothing to stop the defamation of someone who has passed on.

Michael devoted his life to demonstrating love. He encouraged us to change the world. There is no better way to honor Michael than to make positive changes wherever we can. One of the ways we can make an important difference is to work for a law to be passed that makes it illegal to defame the dead. The focus of this effort is to have such a law passed in California, because that is where Michael spent much of his life, and where his family lives.

Although the viciousness toward Michael has eased, the residue of tarnish on his Cadeflaw MJ Profile Photoname and reputation remains. It is time for us to Make That Change. The life and legacy of Michael Jackson should be celebrated with respect in the United States, and around the world.

We are all familiar with the level of unfair media attention heaped upon Michael in the past. Journalists hid behind freedom of speech in an attempt to destroy Michael Jackson for entertainment and profit. The freedom of speech is a right that we all enjoy in the United States, and to lose any part of that freedom would be a travesty. However, with freedom comes responsibility. Each of us has a duty to be honest, fair, and balanced in what we say. Journalists, those from whom the masses get their information, should he held to an even higher standard. It is ugly enough to attack someone while they are here, but to continue to promote old lies, innuendo, and hate once they can no longer speak for themselves is reprehensible.

Slandered/Libeled/Exploited

  • Media (Globally)
  • Comedians
  • Mocked by public because of media “Lies” spin
  • Mocked by peers in Entertainment Industry
  • Accused of Child Molestation
  • Accused of wanting to be “White” and hating “Blacks”
  • Accused of hating his family members
  • Exploited by many

Michael’s last “Indignity”   MAYBE NOT

The defaming articles printed and published in reference to Michael Jackson are too numerous to count. It would take hundreds of pages to post all of them. It is time to give the dead their due, starting with him. What two journalists had to say about Michael Jackson:

Charles Thomson: One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

John Dean: Defaming The Dead: Congressman Peter King’s Michael Jackson Media Rant

 

We will no longer passively accept this disrespectful and cruel assassination of Michael’s name and any other deceased person(s). It is time to come together and take action. The time is NOW.

If you would like to see a law put in place that would prevent the media from feedingMJ 2005 Trial on the reputations of those who have passed on, please sign the Cadeflaw petition. There is strength in numbers, and many voices create a mighty roar.

Cadeflaw Petition Link: California Residents ONLY

Cadeflaw Petition Link: Global

We have free speech for everyone who has nothing to say, but if you have an opinion, then speak at your own peril. ~Air Force Colonel, Morris Davis~

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 21, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Deceased Victims of Slander/Libel/Exploitation (2)

Steven Paul “Steve” Jobs

Steve JobsSteven Paul “Steve” Jobs (/ˈɒbz/; February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011)[5][6] was an American entrepreneur[7] and inventor,[8] best known as the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Apple Inc. Through Apple, he was widely recognized as a charismatic pioneer of the personal computer revolution[9][10] and for his influential career in the computer and consumer electronics fields, transforming “one industry after another, from computers and smartphones to music and movies…”[11] Jobs also co-founded and served as chief executive of Pixar Animation Studios; he became a member of the board of directors of The Walt Disney Company in 2006, when Disney acquired Pixar.

Westboro Baptist Church to protest Steve Jobs’ funeral

The Kansas-based organization, which has protested memorials of everyone from victims of gay bashings to those killed in the 2006 Sago Mine disaster — often times with signs stating “God Hates Fags” — has called for “no peace” for Jobs.  Westboro to Picket Steve Jobs Funeral (It Said Via iPhone)

The church, which has become famous for its unofficial “God Hates Fags” slogan, has been at the center of many controversial pickets in recent years, including sending congregation members to protest at the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards. The church also threatened to picket the funerals of those killed in the Arizona shootings, an act many found particularly distasteful. Those plans were later abandonedWestboro Baptist Church Leader, Margie J. Phelps, Tweets Picket Of Steve Jobs Funeral From An iPhone    CBS Article

 

Lyndon Baine Johnson – 36th President of the United States

Lyndon B. JohnsonLyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to as LBJ, was the 36th President of the United States (1963–1969), a position he assumed after his service as the 37th Vice President of the United States (1961–1963).

He is one of only four people who served in all four elected federal offices of the United States: Representative, Senator, Vice President, and President.

In October 2003, Barr McClellan published Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.. As its title suggests, the book makes an astounding claim that former President Lyndon Johnson, and other deceased officials and persons, were involved in a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

This claim is patently absurd. Yet according to the New York Times, over 75,000 copies of the book have been sold.  Defaming The Dead: A Legal Remedy for Absurd Charges That LBJ Murdered JFK

 

Errol Flynn – Actor

Errol FlynnErrol Flynn was an Australian actor, known for his romantic swashbuckler roles in Hollywood films and his flamboyant lifestyle. He has been accused of being a Nazi, a Communist, a murderer, having sex with underage girls, a diamond smuggler and a crooked cock fight person among other things.

Flynn biographer Charles Higham claims his research shows the dashing actor’s espionage for the Germans led to hundreds dying in concentration camps. The disturbing claims angered many in the actor’s birthplace of Tasmania, Australia, including his daughter Rory and grandson Sean. Did Hitler recruit Errol Flynn as a spy for the Nazis?

The actor, Errol Flynn was called a homosexual and a Nazi spy in a book published by Dell Publishing Company. In a lawsuit filed by his children, the court stated plainly, “A libel on the memory of a deceased person is not deemed to inflict on the surviving relatives any such legal damage as will sustain a civil action for defamation.” Flynn v Higham, (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677

On July 10, 1981, plaintiffs filed a complaint captioned defamation of character against Charles Higham (author of the book Errol Flynn the Untold Story), Dell Publishing Company (publisher of the same book) and various Does (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). The complaint stated that the defendants defamed the plaintiffs by writing that their deceased father was a homosexual and a Nazi spy.  Rory and Deirdre Flynn     Judgment based on this case as being too harsh or unconstitutional (Angie Dickinson)

 

Jack Rose – 

LIBEL OF RELATIVES OF A DECEASED PERSON

Defendant newspaper published an article concerning the death of the plaintiff’s father and husband erroneously identifying him as a notorious murderer. The plaintiffs, who were mentioned only as the surviving wife and children of the deceased, sued to recover damages for injuries to their reputations. Held, no recovery. Rose v.Daily Mirror, Inc., 31 N. E. (2d) 182 (N. Y. 1940).

Most jurisdictions deny recovery by anyone for libel of the memory of a deceased.

The court ruled that the statements made by the newspaper had no “direct reflection” on the family members, although they were named. Therefore, they could not receive damages. Interestingly, the court noted that the state’s legislature had the duty to change the law. Rose v Daily Mirror, Inc. (1940) 284 N.Y. 335   Repository Law, Indiana

The New York Court of Appeals refused to allow the survivors of a defamed decedent to recover against a newspaper because the newspaper’s admittedly defamatory statements concerning the deceased made “no direct reflection” upon the surviving plaintiffs.46 The case had arisen out of an article in which the defendant erroneously identified the recently deceased Jack Rose with “Baldly Jack Rose” a “self-confessed murderer.”47 Presumably because of the rule on the defamation of the dead, Jack Rose’s survivors—whom the article had named—sued the newspaper on their own behalf.48 But the court held that to allow the survivors to recover for defamation of the dead in this situation would be a “far-reaching” departure from New York’s long-standing law.49  Fordham Publications

46. See Rose v. Daily Mirror, Inc., 284 N.Y. 335,337 (1940); Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar test relating to the direct reflection on surviving plaintiffs. See, e.g., Curtis v. The Evening News Assoc., 135 Mich. App. 101,103. (Ct. App. 1984) (holding that the plaintiff could not recover for defamation arising out of an article that falsely stated that plaintiffs dead son had a criminal character); Hughes v. The New England Newspaper Publ’g Co., 43 N.E.2d 657,657-8 (Mass. 1942) (holding that the decedent’s wife could not recover against a newspaper for defamation arising out of an article on the suicide of the decedent because the article was not directed against her even though it identified her as the decedent’s spouse); Lee v. Weston, 402 N.E.2d 23,26 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (holding that the decedent’s parents could not recover for defamation of their son for defendant medical examiner’s statement that their son died of “overdose” because the statement did not reflect upon them, even though their son did live with them); Lambert v. Garlo, 484 N.E.2d 260,262 (Ohio Ct. App. 1985) (holding that decedent’s relatives could not recover for defamation against coroner and newspaper publisher for the statement that the former made in the latter’s newspaper that the decedent was clearly a “pusher” because the plaintiffs were not directly injured by the statements that did not name or refer to them).

 

California CADEFLAW Petition

Global Petition Link

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 18, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Deceased Victims of Slander/Libel/Exploitation (1)

Betty FordWas First Lady of the United States from 1974 to 1977 during the presidency of her husband Gerald Ford. As First Lady, she was active in social policy and created precedents as a politically active presidential wife. Betty Ford

In WBC eyes, Betty Ford was an adulterer who “loved to sit with tawdry reporters and blather about sex.”  WBC – Picket Betty Ford’s Funeral

The extremist church — mostly a collection of Fred Phelps’ extended family and friends — formally won the right to picket funerals in March after an 8-1 Supreme Court decision ruled it is protected by the First Amendment.

 

 

Amy WinehouseAn English singer and songwriter known for her deep contralto vocals and her eclectic mix of musical genres including R&B, soul and jazz.

Winehouse’s 2003 debut album, Frank, was critically successful in the UK and was nominated for the Mercury Prize. Her 2006 follow-up album, Back to Black, led to six Grammy Award nominations and five wins, tying the then record for the most wins by a female artist in a single night, and made Winehouse the first British female to win five Grammys, including three of the “Big Four”: Best New Artist, Record of the Year and Song of the Year.  Amy Winehouse

What does Amy Winehouse, victims of the current famine in the Horn of Africa, Michael Jackson and a rape victim from Libya all have in common? They, among others, are the target for what is becoming a common source of pleasure and entertainment for many, and the opportunity for others to spew forth their own unique brand of virtual psychological and emotional terrorism, and that is, “The Comment”. The Comment by Valmai Owens

 

 

Lance Corporal Matthew SnyderLance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, of Westminster, 20, was assigned to Combat Service Support Group-1, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, in Twentynine Palms, Calif.  Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew

A. Snyder Marine’s Father Sues Church for Cheering Son’s Death

Albert Snyder, a Spring Garden Township man and father of Matthew Snyder, wanted the justices to restore a U.S. District Court s verdict that the Kansas-based church invaded his privacy and defamed his son when it protested Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder’s 2006 military funeral. Snyder v. Phelps – Westboro

 

 

Nicole CatsourasThe Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy concerns the leaking of photographs of Nicole “Nikki” Catsouras (March 4, 1988 – October 31, 2006) who died at the age of 18 in a car crash after losing control of her father’s Porsche 911 Carrera at high speed and colliding with a toll booth in Lake ForestCalifornia.

Photographs of Catsouras’ badly disfigured body were published on the Internet, leading her family to take legal action due to the distress this caused.

At approximately 1:45 p.m. on Oct. 31, 2006, 15 minutes after taking her father’s Porsche 911 for a drive without permission, Nikki Catsouras was speeding on State Route 241, near Lake Forest, Calif., when the accident occurred and killed her instantly.

Photos of her decapitated body, still strapped into the car, were taken by highway patrol officers investigating the crash, in accordance with departmental policy. “One of the officers e-mails some of the photographs to a dispatcher and then the dispatcher e-mails them outside the police department,” said Keith Bremer, a lawyer for the Catsouras family. “And then from there, you know, it created a life of its own and created momentum and it just, it just exploded.”

The Catsourases soon began receiving anonymous e-mails and text messages that contained photographs of the accident, including pictures of Nicole. A fake MySpace page was created, which at first looked like a tribute to Catsouras but also showed the horrific photos. Source

Photos are horrible. Why are they still on the internet?

 

 

Army Spc. Carrie L. French

Carrie FrenchBOISE, Idaho — A Kansas preacher and gay rights foe whose congregation is protesting military funerals around the country said he’s coming to Idaho tomorrow to picket the memorial for an Idaho National Guard soldier killed in Iraq.

A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at Phelps’ church six years ago.

Fred Phelps to Protest Soldier’s Funeral

 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 18, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts

March 2, 2011

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

It is a heartrending day in this country when our Supreme Court Justices would rule against the remarkable men and women; our US soldiers who serve our country and who has given their lives and continue to do so that we may be safe from harm. They stand watch and fight so that we may have the full benefit of these freedoms.

It is not only tactless but reprehensible when a pastor and his members are allowed to promote HATE by making inflammatory statements by way of picket signs against our fallen soldiers; and the highest court in America agrees with them by permitting them legal cover, hiding behind the first amendment. Men and women who have volunteered to serve and protect us should be honored, not defamed and slandered.

This pastor, along with his family members, presented themselves at the funeral of a deceased soldier, Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq in 2006, with signs reading: “Thank God for dead soldiers,” ”You’re Going to Hell,” ”God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men. It is common knowledge that this group pickets many military funerals promoting hate while using the word of God as a cover to do so.

“Thank God for 9/11”. How terroristic is that, sir? And the justices of the highest court in this land sided with these people? I love this country and I value the freedom that has been granted to me and others; but sir, please, how could you write an opinion using the constitution to side with something this malevolence?

How can the constitution shield such iniquitous remarks or written pronouncements such as these about anyone; and especially a deceased soldier? What does that declare to the world about our country? If a “God” fearing man can get away with something such as this, it tells me that I am at the mercy of any group who decides they hate me and promotes it because your court gives them that right. I say your court because God can’t be in that decision.

It is time that people cease using the “First Amendment” to commit such evils. Freedom of Speech is a right given to us and I consider it to be an honor and most certainly a privilege to have full use of it. However, it does not give us the right to defame and slander those who can’t defend themselves; and there is a responsibility to be fair and just while exercising that freedom.

Matthew Snyder and other fallen soldiers died defending the rights of others and they deserve much more than what they have been given. The deceased have a right for their legacy’s to be protected and preserved. Instead the US courts give odious people the right to speak and publish hateful comments about them. Justice Roberts, that doesn’t sound right to me.

The first amendment should be redressed and the proper corrections made right. It is time for change, sir. People would be mindful if they were penalized for these slanderous and defaming statements. It is time an “Anti-Defamation Legacy Law” be put into place, sir.

I do realize, of course, that you will not be of the same opinion as myself and many others; but let us agree, in advance, to disagree. Most of America won’t be in agreement; especially those who hide behind the “First Amendment”. However, it is TIME for CHANGE.

I thank you kindly for your time, Chief Justice Roberts.

Humbly Submitted by:  MJ Brookins, CAD

A few videos from WBC displaying their “Hate” promotions


 LC Snyder Slide 2

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , ,

Criminal Statues Regarding Defamation of the Deceased

7 U.S. States With criminal Libel Laws for Internet Defamation

(7) States Having Criminal Statues Regarding Defamation of the Deceased

NOTE: The following  information was published February 24, 2011 on the Cadeflaw website Five States Having Criminal Statues Regarding Defamation of the Deceased  http://www.cadeflaw.org.

Original information was first obtained from Wikipedia and First Amendment Center. However, none of that information can be found on either webpage, as I’ve recently found out. That is very interesting. It is not unusual for information to be periodically updated, but information concerning the five states in reference to “Defamation of the Deceased” can not be found on either site.

Original Information from Wikipedia on February 24, 2011 It should be noted that there can be regional statutes as well that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United States as a general rule of thumb defamation is limited to the living. However, there are five states (Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada) that have criminal statues regarding defamation of the dead[20]

1. ^ Colorado Revised Statute Section 18-13-105, Idaho Code § 18-4801, Georgia Code – Crimes and Offenses – Title 16, Section 16-11-40, Louisiana Revised Statute § 14:47, and Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.510.

Original Information from First Amendment Center Site

Colorado

“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).

People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado statute to the extent that it criminalized statements made by one private individual about another private individual. The court also held that “actual malice” need not be proved in cases between two private individuals.

Georgia

“(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).

Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff’d 401 U.S. 985, held that the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so long as the provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However, Williamson v. State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional because the language “tends to provoke a breach of peace” is vague and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not been revised and remains on the books.

Idaho

Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who willfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18-4809.

Louisiana

“Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner, to anyone other than the party defamed, of anything which tends:

(1) To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their business or occupation.

Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47 (2005)

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), holds that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional so far as it punishes true statements about public officials that are uttered with malicious purpose. Additionally, the statute is unconstitutional in respect to its failure to differentiate whether false statements against public officials were made with malice, reckless disregard of truth or falsity, or in a reasonable belief of the truth of the statement. However, Louisiana’s statute is not unconstitutional per se as long as any actual prosecutions under it follow the constraints laid out in Garrison. Snyder v. Ware, 314 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1970), aff’d 397 U.S. 589. The Louisiana statute still remains on the books.

Nevada

Nevada makes it a “gross misdemeanor” to libel the living through publication of material that would expose them to ridicule, or to “blacken the memory of the dead.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510. Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to furnish libelous information to a newspaper or other publication. Id. at 200.550. There is no “intent” requirement, but there is a defense if the information was true and published “for good motive and justifiable ends.” Id. at 200.510

“Any method by which matter charged as libelous may be communicated to another shall be deemed a publication thereof.” Id. at 200.520.

Editors and proprietors of published material may be held liable, but an editor or proprietor may escape guilt by proving “that the matter complained of was published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes by another who had no authority from him to make such publication, and was retracted by him as soon as known with an equal degree of publicity.” Id. at 200.530.

Nevada law makes it a “gross misdemeanor” either to threaten to libel somebody, or to solicit personal gain in return for not libeling somebody. Id. at 200.560.

Note: In an unpublished order, federal Judge Johnnie Rawlinson approved an agreement between the Nevada Press Association and the Nevada Attorney General that the statutes would not be enforced because they were unconstitutional. In Nevada Press Association v. del Papa, CV-S-98-00991-JBR (199, the final judgment stated that the statutes were unconstitutional because they were overbroad and punished individuals for the publication of truthful statements.

NEW INFORMATION OBTAINED 

Different Standards For Public Figures & Private Individuals In Internet Defamation Lawsuits Kelly Warner Law

In most cases, only the living can be defamed. However, ten states have laws prohibiting defamation of the dead (Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, North Dakota and Washington).

Utah, North Dakota and Washington….unable to find any information on these three states concerning Internet Defamation for the deceased.

Criminal libel laws for Internet Defamation (Living and Deceased) Criminal Libel Laws for Internet Defamation

Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)

Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).

People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo., 1991), upheld the Colorado statute to the extent that it criminalized statements made by one privateindividual about another private individual. The court also held that “actual malice” need not be proved in cases between two private individuals.

Georgia
“(a) A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace.

(b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-40 (2005).

Porter v. Kimzey, 309 F.Supp. 993 (N.D. Ga. 1970), aff’d 401 U.S. 985, held that the criminal-libel statute does not violate the First Amendment so long as the provisions in the statute are precise and objective. However, Williamson v. State, 249 Ga. 851 (1982), held that the statute was partially unconstitutional because the language “tends to provoke a breach of peace” is vague and overbroad. Yet in light of the decision, the statute has not been revised and remains on the books.

Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).

“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.

Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.

“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.

It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.

“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.

Libelous remarks or comments in relation to “true and fair” reports receive no protection. Id. at 18-4808.

It is a misdemeanor to either threaten to libel a person or their family member or solicit money in return for preventing a libel. Id. at 18- 4809.

Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.” Kan. Stat. Ann § 21-4004 (2005).

The court in Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058 (10th Cir. 1995), found the statute required actual malice in matters of public concern and furtherheld that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad.

Louisiana
“Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner, to anyone other than the party defamed, of anything which tends:

(1) To expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation, or association of persons in his or their business or occupation.

Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47 (2005)

Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), holds that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional so far as it punishes true statements about public officials that are uttered with malicious purpose. Additionally, the statute is unconstitutional in respect to its failure to differentiate whether false statements against public officials were made with malice, reckless disregard of truth or falsity, or in a reasonable belief of the truth of the statement. However, Louisiana’s statute is not unconstitutional per se as long as any actual prosecutions under it follow the constraints laid out in Garrison. Snyder v. Ware, 314 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1970), aff’d 397 U.S. 589. The Louisiana statute still

Nevada
Nevada makes it a “gross misdemeanor” to libel the living through publication of material that would expose them to ridicule, or to “blacken thememory of the dead.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510. Similarly, it is a misdemeanor to furnish libelous information to a newspaper or other publication. Id. at 200.550. There is no “intent” requirement, but there is a defense if the information was true and published “for good motive and justifiable ends.” Id. at 200.510

“Any method by which matter charged as libelous may be communicated to another shall be deemed a publication thereof.” Id. at 200.520.

Editors and proprietors of published material may be held liable, but an editor or proprietor may escape guilt by proving “that the mattercomplained of was published without his knowledge or fault and against his wishes by another who had no authority from him to make suchpublication, and was retracted by him as soon as known with an equal degree of publicity.” Id. at 200.530.

Nevada law makes it a “gross misdemeanor” either to threaten to libel somebody, or to solicit personal gain in return for not libeling somebody. Id. at 200.560.

Note: In an unpublished order, federal Judge Johnnie Rawlinson approved an agreement between the Nevada Press Association and the Nevada Attorney General that the statutes would not be enforced because they were unconstitutional. In Nevada Press Association v. del Papa, CV-S-98-00991-JBR (1998), the final judgment stated that the statutes were unconstitutional because they were overbroad and punished individuals for thepublication of truthful statements.

Oklahoma
The state has promulgated four libel-related crimes:
1.“Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends.” 21 Okla. Stat. § 771 (2005). It is not, however, necessary that anyone actually read or otherwise learn of the libel for a conviction to be secured; mere exposure to the possibility of being read by another person is enough. Id. at 776.
2.Any person who makes a libel, willfully publishes one or willfully or knowingly aids in the making of a libel may be punished by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of $1,000 (and shall be liable in civil court to the injured party). Id. at 773.
3.One who “falsely and maliciously or falsely and wantonly” imputes unchastity to a female is guilty of a crime, but one with much less severepenalties: $25.00 in fines or 90 days in jail. In such cases, the state need not prove the imputed information to be false; rather, the truth of the information is an affirmative defense. Id. at 779-80.
4.“Willfully, knowingly, or maliciously” spreading false rumors is also a crime. Id. at 781; see Pegg v. State, 659 P.2d (Okla. Crim. App. 1983)(upholding this statute as not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad).

A person who threatens to make a libel is presumed to have the same “intent” (mens rea) as one who actually does make a libel. Id. at 778.

The truth of information published with “good motives” and “justifiable ends” is a defense to libel. Id. at 774. An individual will not be liable for a statement if the statement is privileged information that is published as part of a legislative or judicial process, as part of one’s official duties, or as a “fair and true” report of the former. In the case of unprivileged information, publication gives rise to a rebuttal e presumption of malice. Id. at 772. Moreover, even when a newspaper makes a “fair and true” report of one of the above proceedings, if it does so with malicious intent, it can still be convicted of libel — although malice will not be presumed from publication. Id. at 777.

The Oklahoma statute contains the language “blackens the name of the dead,” which alludes to a cause of action for a deceased individual or their relatives. However, in Turner v. Crime Detective, 34 F.Supp. 8 (N.D. Okla. 1940), the court held that a common law recovery for libel was not available to a deceased individual nor could the deceased individual’s estate or relatives recover for the libel. The Oklahoma statute does not include language that expressly changes the common law requirement that the individual be living nor does the statute language expressly create a right for a deceased individual or their relatives to recover for the libel. Therefore, the court held that in Oklahoma an action for libel cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased individual. Nonetheless, the statute language has remained unchanged.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2013 in Advocacy

 

Tags: , , ,