The Heart Of The Matter

The Heart of the Matter (Matt. 5:21-32) Jesus taught that righteousness was a matter of the heart. In other words, its not only about what we do, but about what we think/feel/believe (our attitude within) (Matt. 5:21-22) The standard is not “others”, its Jesus. We need to get our heart right, and be reconciled with our brothers (or sisters), before coming to worship God (Matt. 5:23-24) Reconcile quickly to avoid judgment. Slurs/Defamation warrant severe judgment (Matt. 5:22-23) Raka, Gk. Idiot, fool, mentally deficient Moros, Gk. Void of character or morals “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” - William Shakespeare, Othello “That mere general abuse and scurrility, however ill-natured and vexatious, is no more actionable when written than spoken, if it do not convey a degrading charge or imputation. Against all such attacks, a man needs no other protection than a good character; and the law will not suppose that damage can happen to such a character from the pointless arrows of mere vulgarity.” - Rice v. Simmons, 2 Del. (2 Harr.) 417, 429 (1838) Libel (Writing) Elements of a Libel Claim 1. Defamatory statement 2. Identification “The action of slander is necessarily based upon the words uttered and their defamatory nature as applied to plaintiff. From a reading or hearing of the words noted here, one cannot conclude that they were directed to the plaintiff alone or to him as one of a group of persons. . . An action for defamation lies only in case the defendant has published the matter ‘of and concerning the plaintiff.’ Here the words refer to one not specified of a group of persons. Whereas it is essential that the 'defamatory words must refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff’. . . . “So, if the words reflect impartially on either A or B, or on some one of a certain number or class, and there is nothing to show which one was meant, no one can sue.” - Cohn v. Brecher, 192 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y.Sup. 1959)

3. Publication A statement is "published" if it is communicated to someone other than the person whom the statement is about. In the case of newspapers, magazines, radio television, or wire services, the libeled person does not have to prove that someone read or heard the defamatory statement. (Theory: too burdensome to check) According to the Restatement 2d Torts § 577: (1) Publication of defamatory matter is its communication intentionally or by a negligent act to one other than the person defamed. (2) One who intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that he knows to be exhibited on land or chattels in his possession or under his control is subject to liability for its continued publication. 4. Fault In order to be "at fault" in publishing a statement, the person suing must prove that the reporter either did something they should not have done or that they failed to do something that they should have done. If the reporter did everything a "reasonable reporter" should have done to verify the information in his or her story before publishing it - for example, talked to all sides, obtained and read all relevant documents, took accurate notes, etc. - the reporter is not legally "at fault." 5. Falsity 6. Personal Harm A statement is harmful if it seriously shames, ridicules, disgraces or injures a person's reputation or causes others to do so. Statements that are mildly embarrassing or merely confusing or inaccurate will not meet the "harm" test. Not need to prove actual (e.g. money) damages (as with slander) Libel is generally divided into three classes: (1) publications obviously defamatory which are called libel per se; (2) publications susceptible of two interpretations one of which is defamatory and the other not; and (3) publications not obviously defamatory but when considered with innuendo, colloquium, and explanatory circumstances become libelous, which are termed libels per quod. (from Arnold v. Sharpe, 296 N.C. 533, 537, 251 S.E.2d 452, 455 (1979)) Libel per se A clear, unambiguous, commonly-agreed-to meaning. Some types of words like “unethical, adulterer, thief, cheat, criminal, liar, drunkard, communist...” are universally interpreted as defamatory. No surrounding context or factors need to be considered. (See Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 212 N.C. 780 (1938) Note: Standards can and do change. In 1998, a New York court ruled that the use of the word “bitch” was not libelous.

Related recent news item: May 29, 2004, Judge: Homosexual Isn't Libelous Term Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man. "In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday. (from the AP via ABCNews.com.) “When a publication is libelous per se, a prima facie presumption of malice and a conclusive presumption of legal injury arise entitling the victim to recover at least nominal damages without proof of special damages.” Hanton v. Gilbert, 126 N.C. App. 561, 567, 486 S.E.2d 432, 436-37 (1997) (quoting Arnold v. Sharpe, 296 N.C. at 537-38, 251 S.E.2d at 455 (1979)). Libel per quod Not apparent in the words themselves. These are communications that are defamatory only when other facts or contexts are taken into consideration; this is an indirect libel; an implied defamatory comment. (e.g. when the picture of a 70 year-old woman who had hosted a garden party was inadvertently place above a story about a “cathouse madam”.) When a publication is libelous per quod, the injurious character of the words and some special damage must be pleaded and proved. Renwick v. News & Observer Pub. Co, 310 N.C. at 316, 312 S.E.2d at 408 (1984); Flake v. Greensboro News Co., 212 N.C. at 785, 195 S.E.2d at 59 (1938). Examples of some libel awards 1991 largest libel judgment in U.S. History: $58 M. to Texas district attorney Vic Feazel, who was falsely accused by WFAA-TV in Dallas of taking bribes to fix drunken driving and drug possession cases. They ultimately settled out court for a smaller amount. 1993 New York appellate court upheld an $18.5 M. dollar award against Buffalo TV station WKBW for incorrectly associating a restaurant owner with organized crime. Later reduced to $15.5 M. A retrial was ordered because of faulty jury instructions and that jury awarded $11.5 million in damages. Slander (Speech) Slander is a false and unprivileged publication (speech) that injures a person’s reputation or character. Slander per se if allege: • • • •

Loathsome communicable disease. Professional impropriety. Imprisonment for a serious crime. Unmarried woman is unchaste

No proof of damages is required Actual Malice Media - Public Officials or Public Figures Must Prove “Actual Malice” New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (for Public Figure) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) (for Public Official) In order for a public official or a public figure to prove defamation, they must prove actual malice. Actual malice requires that the person suing prove that the challenged statement was published by those who either knew it was false or were reckless in verifying its accuracy. Reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice. St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262, 267 (1968). Malice typically may not be inferred, but must be proven by competent evidence The First Amendment recognizes the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. A public figure may hold a speaker liable for publication of a defamatory falsehood if it was made with malice. If it were not required, political cartoons and satires would be imperiled. These have had an effect on the course and outcome of public debate; our political discourse would have been poorer without them. There is no doubt that the caricature of Falwell and his mother is at best a distant cousin of the political cartoon, and a rather poor relation at that. But it would be too hard for a jury to distinguish between this and desired speech without a malice standard. Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Who is a Public Figure? Public figures are those who have chosen to thrust themselves into the limelight. There are two categories: (1) General Purpose Public Figure: is a an individual who has assumed a role of special prominence in the affairs of society and occupies a position of persuasive power and influence or is a "celebrity," whose pervasive fame or notoriety has made his or her name a "household word.” (e.g. Oprah) (2) Limited Purpose Public Figure: someone who has voluntarily assumed a leading role in a particular public controversy. Private Persons In most states, a private person need only prove that a reporter was negligent, that is, that the reporter made a mistake - perhaps an innocent one - that a "reasonable" reporter should not have made. If not public figure, must prove actual malice ONLY when the defamatory falsehoods related to the controversy they associated themselves with.

Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974) Court held that in defamation suits by a private figure arising out of matters of public concern, the states may set any standard of care except strict liability. Most states chose negligence as the standard of care for defamation defendants in a Gertz situation. (see also: Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985) Defenses to a claim of defamation Truth - is a complete defense Privilege Absolute Privilege - (e.g. Statements by members of Congress on the floor, participants in certain judicial proceedings, private statements between spouses) Conditionally Privileged - e.g. Employee references (lawyers generally recommend not giving such) Note: Other privileges exist, but vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Opinion - A statement of mere opinion cannot be defamatory In many other countries, such as Canada, Australia, South Africa “a claim to dignity or to personality will trump a claim to freedom of speech. In Germany, the burden is on newspapers to verify the truth of their statements. German Law also states that freedom of speech "shall find its limits ... in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.” - Source: Donald Kommers, professor of law and political science at the University of Notre Dame, discussion on free speech and defamation 3-1-2006, part of the Democracy Dialogues series of discussions on freedom of speech. There is “righteous anger” (Mark 3:5; Eph. 4:26) Lustful Heart Blepō, Gk. = looks at, continuously gazes at, with either their physical eye, or their minds eye (e.g. fantasizes about) (= adultery of the heart) This is an issue of respect for human dignity! Human Dignity is “the intrinsic worth that inheres in every human being. From the Catholic perspective (among other Christian perspectives), the source of human dignity is rooted in the concept of Imago Dei, in Christ’s redemption and in our ultimate destiny of union with God. Human dignity therefore transcends any social order as the basis for rights and is neither granted by society nor can it be legitimately violated by society. In this way, human dignity is the conceptual basis for human rights. While providing the foundation for many normative claims, one direct normative implication of human dignity is that every human being should be acknowledged as an inherently valuable member of the human community and as a unique expression of life, with an integrated bodily and spiritual nature. In Catholic moral thought,

because there is a social or communal dimension to human dignity itself, persons must be conceived of, not in overly-individualistic terms, but as being inherently connected to the rest of society.” - from the Ascension Health Code of Ethics “The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. - Albert Einstein (in a letter 11/20/50) “Every man is to be respected as an absolute end in himself; and it is a crime against the dignity that belongs to him as a human being, to use him as a mere means for some external purpose.” Immanuel Kant, Prussian geographer and philosopher (1724-1804) “Should not all men be restrained from acts of violence and even unkindness against their fellow men by observing in them something which resembles the Saviour of the world.” – Benjamin Rush, Commonplace Book, May 27, 1790. The drastic illustrations used by Jesus of plucking out an eye or cutting off a limb demonstrate the serious threat posed by such a heart condition. (Matt. 5:27-30) Skandalizio, Gk. (from where we get the word scandalize) = leads one to sin Divorce God hates divorce (Mal. 2:13-16) Divorce breaks a covenant promise (Num. 30:2) Permissible only under the most exceptional circumstances (e.g. sexual immorality) (Matt. 5:31-23; 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12) Satan does not want man to be happy or the will of God to be fulfilled so He has worked diligently to destroy the institution of marriage, which God established for man. Divorce is a sin and it is wrong, but it is not the unforgivable sin. Statistics have proven that divorced people do not feel welcomed in church. But what better place is there than the church to receive healing and ministering? The church has been notorious for looking down on the divorced and seeing them as second-class citizens. This is not the attitude that Jesus had to the divorced. (John 4:16-19)