This story from CNN.com about abuse that may have occurred at a Florida reform school in the 1960s includes some information that could be considered defamatory. Though the article does talk about an investigation ordered by the Florida governor into the possibility that white crosses mark the graves of boys who died at the school in the 1950s and ‘60s, most of the information is culled from quotes by one woman and her son about “Edward”, the deceased patriarch of their family who told them stories about his time at the school.
The fact that the story uses unnamed sources is the first hint that this story could possibly present a libel problem. The quotes implicate the employees of the school in several crimes, including child abuse and even murder. Though no one is named, the story is specific enough to identify anyone who might have worked at the school during that time.
This quote from the article seems to me to be especially dangerous: “Former students, now in their 60s, have alleged that they were beaten and sexually abused. Some of their classmates suddenly disappeared, they said.” This quote implicates murder when paired with the assertion that the white crosses on the school’s property are being investigated by the state. There seems to me to be a little too much liberty taken without enough information from the official investigation.
One big problem is that not only are these sources unnamed, the man who actually attended the school (supposedly, no proof is given in the article that he was enrolled at the school) is now dead. The wife and son of the man blame Edward’s death on the school. This is dangerous, as it implicates crimes that have not been proven in any way—the school hasn’t even been charged with anything.
The connections that are drawn between the abuse at the school and the abuse the two sources say they endured are dangerous territory for defamation as well. Without an official source like a psychiatrist to connect the abuse Edward experienced with what he did to his family, CNN should avoid asserting that his actions were a direct result of what he experienced.
The most dangerous assertion of the story is here:
"'The made him line up outside of a fence and said that when they turned the lights on, to shoot whoever was at the fence," Chris said. "When they turned the lights on, there was some black kids trying to get out of the fence, and they gave my dad a .22 rifle.'
Chris said his father told him he shot one of the boys in the face."
Not only is this an indirect quote of sorts, it subtly implicates employees at the school of forcing boys to murder other boys. If this could not be proved, anyone who worked at the school during the '50s and '60s could probably bring a a defamation case against CNN.
This story is also dangerous because the employees who worked at the school would probably not be considered public figures, making the standard negligence and not malice. Keeping that in mind, if nothing came of the pending investigation, CNN could find themselves in some trouble for defamation.
Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting case, and you raise a lot of good points. The story as posted on CNN's Web site is very vague. It seems to rely substantially on other news reports about the alleged abuse, but it doesn't link directly to them. Chances are the reporting by other organizations is solid enough to make CNN feel comfortable, but that doesn't excuse the lack of specifics in this report.
If CNN talked to five former students at the school, which the story says, that goes a long way toward establishing the general truth of the claims of abuse. Either that or there's quite a conspiracy of lying. Perhaps the broadcast report this story is teasing to will offer more substantial information and evidence from these interviews. The lack of on-the-record sources here, though, is, as you say, distressing.
There are a few factors that make this an unlikely libel case. One is the widespread reporting and the apparent high number of sources making various claims against the school. It's hard to suggest that talking to five former students who offer similar stories is negligent reporting. Also, even though many of the school staff members involved won't be public figures, the school itself bears a public responsibility, and scrutiny into how it functioned would probably get wide latitude from a court -- especially because no individuals are specifically accused of wrongdoing. It's true that if the staff were small enough, any individual could argue that they're being directly accused. But it's also possible that the staff was large enough (say, 25 or more) that no one person could claim to be identified. Finally, given the age of the people involved, mostly 80s or 90s, it would be difficult to show substantial harm to reputation or any financial damages that would result. Also, you can't libel a dead person.
All that said, this is an awkward story that raises a lot of legal and ethical issues. It's a good example of many things editors need to look out for.
I noticed this story online also and was also struck by the number of "holes" in the story. However, I don't think any of the material in the story would be considered libelous. The Supreme Court's decision in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps established that private figures involved in matters of public interest are required to prove falsity, as well as negligence, in a libel suit. With this ruling, the Court indicated that speech that might be true deserves protection when that speech concerns a matter of public interest. Clearly, this case is of public interest because of the impact this school allegedly had on a number of people and families. However, it would probably be difficult for any individuals who might have been identified in this story to prove falsity because most of claims made in the story could be claimed by CNN to be protected speech regarding an issue of public interest that may be true.
ReplyDelete