First, I’d like to thank all those who expressed support over the last few days and who have patiently borne the lack of blogging that ensued. I very much appreciate your kind words and understanding.
Receiving the threat of a lawsuit is a delicate matter–even when you know that you have not violated the law–and one must proceed with the utmost caution in responding.
There is an old saying that "A man who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client," and even people who are themselves lawyers (I am not) are wise to obtain representation when they are being threatened with legal action. Nobody–not even a lawyer–should respond on his own behalf to threats posed by other lawyers. Even those who know the law intimately need someone who has the kind of cool head and situational detachment needed to help navigate such waters.
Consequently, upon reading the letter from Mr. Moyers’ lawyers, I immediately contacted my friend Stephen Dillard (who has a really cool signature) of the law firm James, Bates, Pope, and Spivey and he most graciously offered very timely assistance. I wish to thank him most of all for his effort, support, and wise counsel in handling the matter.
I’d also like to thank the other lawyers and legal professionals who offered their services in the event such were to become necessary.
As individuals have surmised in the combox, I have been advised not to comment on the matter in detail, though Stephen has examined and cleared this post for publication.
I regret that Bill Moyers did not choose to contact me privately and simply ask that I present his side of the story. As individuals have surmised in the combox, I would have been most willing to do so as a matter of basic fairness.
Such an approach would have been in keeping with the Golden Rule on my part and, on Mr. Moyers’ part, it would have been in keeping with Jesus’ directive to approach a brother privately and solve problems on the lowest level possible (Matthew 18), as well as St. Paul’s directive to be hesitant to engage the legal system in settling matters among Christians (1 Corinthians 6). Mr. Moyers is (or has been) an ordained Baptist minister, and I wish that he had attempted such private efforts first.
Finally, I would like to thank the other bloggers and news sources who have linked the story. Though they have expressed a variety of views on the subject, or run the link without comment, they have in any case publicized Mr. Moyers denial and thus helped spread his side of the story, both among those who read the stories on their sites and among those who clicked through and generated the tens of thousands of hits on the Moyers Exchange post on mine. These blogs and news sources include:
Instapundit
Salon.Com
The Corner
Crime & Federalism
No Left Turns
Amy Welborn
The Curt Jester
The Evangelical Outpost
Conservative Bulldog
Irresponsible Journalism
PowerBlog
BillHobbs.Com
The Evangelical Ecologist
No Silence Here
Three Br0thers
Daily Pundit
Hierodule
The Boring Made Dull
Because this exchange is likely to raise in the minds of bloggers and blog commenters the question of how libel law applies to the blogosphere, I felt it would be appropriate to link an article by law professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit that should help others understand what the law requires. This is presented as an informational source only and not as legal advice (which I can’t give, anyway):
Glenn Reynolds’ paper "Libel in the Blogosphere: Some Preliminary Thoughts" [.pdf]
One final note: In the interests of fairness to both sides, I plan on covering whatever responses Dr. Beisner and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance make public and whatever response Mr. Moyers has to them. If the responses are not too lengthy, I will endeavor to post them in their entirety. If not, I will post a relevant excerpt and a link to the originals (assuming they are presented online). If the latter approach is necessary, I will extend both parties equal space.
It looks like you survived the “Instalanche”. Many a server has crashed when linked by Professor Reynolds.
Welcome back.
IMHO, the one thing one can say about Jimmy is that he always seems to present things fairly.
Well, as a lawyer I have to say that both letters are very artfully crafted and deserve to be read with care. The word selection is very thoughtful in both cases, and the letters should be appreciated not only for what they said but also for what they carefully declined to say.
Also, I would be very surprised if this matter isn’t over for Jimmy. His lawyers essentially agreed to Moyers’ “demands” out of simple fairness. Moreover, Moyers has no case against Jimmy, and his lawyers know it. Their only option would be to use litigation as a weapon for its own sake, and I don’t see why they should have any appetite to do that. The lawyers sent the letter they did because it probably never occured to them that a blogger like Jimmy would have “printed” the requested responses upon simple request; indeed, likely would have done so even if not requested — simply out of fairness. These lawyers are from NY after all, and everyday fairness and civility isn’t something they are necessarily acquainted with. They are probably still trying to parse the response letter for hidden threats and strategies, at $600 per hour.
Jimmy has excellent counsel, and he is wise (as we already know) for listening to them.
A lawsuit? I think it is nice of you to give your readers something scary for Halloween!
You think of everything.
Jimmy, great job on the coverage of this story. I have received and posted Beisner’s response to Moyers here.
Jimmy, glad you’re back.
Mr. Moyers is (or has been) an ordained Baptist minister
John Smyth must be rolling over in his grave.
You should thank Bill Moyers and his lawyers for being responsible for thousands of people visiting your blog for the first time. Some of them probably looked at other postings, from which they would have learned things of value, and may be back as regular readers.
Will the Interfaith newsletters referenced in this post and the original post be available online at some point?
“These lawyers are from NY after all, and everyday fairness and civility isn’t something they are necessarily acquainted with.”
Was that really necessary? I have several good friends practicing in New York, none of whom have any difficulty with everyday fairness and civility. I have encountered many attorneys in both Texas and California, places I myself have practiced, who lacked familiarity with either.
I would guess that the attorneys in this case were probably just being overcautious simply because a defamatory statement may be impossible to contain or reverse once it gets out, leaving no effective remedy for the tarnished reputation. In those cases, it becomes a question of whether you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The lawyers can try to intimidate people into shutting down by asserting a colorable (but extremely weak) claim of defamation, or they could simply inform the bloggers that the original article was false. But in the former case, you get a quick response even if your bluff is called, and that’s probably what they were after. I wouldn’t charge the lawyers with bad conduct here; they were simply representing their client zealously within the bounds of the law. I certainly wouldn’t go to *trial* on such a weak defamation claim, but if you don’t make the claim at all, then no one will take you seriously.
I’m happy you are back. You’re a man of integrity, and I applaud you for maintaining decorum.
Jimmy,
You’ve called Pope Benedict His “Awesomeness.” As far as I’m concerned, you fit the bill, too. :->
Yay- Jimmy is back!!
Alright, it is with great relief that I read more blogposts by Jimmy. Wonder why he was silent for so long?
Yeah, I thought that was a cheap shot on NY lawyers, too.
“You’ve called Pope Benedict His “Awesomeness.” As far as I’m concerned, you fit the bill, too. :->”
— DITTO!
Jonathan,
As you say, “it becomes a question of whether you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The lawyers can try to intimidate people into shutting down by asserting a colorable (but extremely weak) claim of defamation, or they could simply inform the bloggers that the original article was false. But in the former case, you get a quick response even if your bluff is called, and that’s probably what they were after.”
My point is that having practiced in Atlanta for 25 years I would have chosen honey, especially given the weak case. My choice, however, would be based largely on my professional expereience, whioch suggests that a polite request for fairness would be more effective. These lawyers went for vineger precisely because that strategy seemed more likely to bring success based on their experience. I don’t think our disparate experiences are unrelated to our geography.
I immediately contacted my friend Stephen Dillard (who has a really cool signature)
I knew I couldn’t be the only admirer of the signature!
I don’t think our disparate experiences are unrelated to our geography.
I hate to pin it on geography per se. The social interactions in NY may be a little more gruff than other places, but I have also rarely seen as much genuine good will for other human beings anywhere else. Perhaps it would be more salutary to distinguish the lawyers who routinely have to deal with multiple mega-corporate clients as opposed to those with a more personal practice. New York had its reputation because it was THE corporate town, but now that the legal industry has shifted more toward that sort of business everywhere, this impersonal style of dealing with legal controversies is becoming more common everywhere. All I’m saying is that if you’re going to put the blame somewhere, I’d put it on people representing Fortune 500 companies, as opposed to dealing with actual human beings. 😉
And it couldn’t be a good lawyer joke without the…
Disclaimer: As an in-house counsel myself, I don’t actually consider my brethren subhuman, but I do recognize the business necessities that have driven us all to be somewhat ruthless in legal controversies. 🙂
OK, enough of my overreaction to a casual comment. Feel free to return to the happy subject of Jimmy’s return FROM legal controversy!
Jonathan, I don’t think it overreaction at all.
I had noted Mike’s and ignored it out of (perhaps misplaced) charity instead of coming back with a comment of “Well you know those (insert geography), they just don’t know any better.”
New York City is the most courteous city on the planet according to a Reader’s Digest study released in June 2006.
But that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant New York City.
You said simply NY. Those of us from NY (no specification), put you in the category of “but you have to excuse him, he doesn’t know better” category. Many people are astonished to learn that some of us New Yorkers live several hundred miles and several hours driving time from NYC.
Bottom line, if that was an example of “using honey,” then you can’t tell the difference between honey and vinegar. Just sayin’.
My friend and I are indebted to the New Yorkers on the Fifth Avenue bus who gave us the exact change to pay our fare to GCS. Otherwise, we might have ridden that bus all the way to Staten Island! The rest of the city was the same.
Go New York!
Fair enough, Jonathan.
Well handled, bro. And I agree with Marty – If the Lord uses all things for good (and he does), perhaps this whole thing will ultimately draw more attention to Christianity and ecology. Hope we can get back to that dialogue now.
Grace and peace,
Don