Fresno will pay $60,000 to forum

The Fresno Bee ^ | January 13, 2004 | Jim Davis

[OldCorps]

Fresno will pay $60,000 to conservative online forum Free Republic and retract a news release that called the organization a "hate group," according to a settlement agreement released Monday. Free Republic founder Jim Robinson, who lives in Fresno, said he wouldn't have filed the suit if the city had acknowledged its error.

[Joe Brower]

Well done, Mr. Robinson & co.

[smith288]

I read the article on newsmax and used the FR search engine by title. Unfortunately I searched for the newsmax title and not the fresno bee title.

Thus the duplicate posting. My mistake.

Ah... The best way to resolve issues with technology is to find out how users are using it and try to improve it based on the experience. But in this case, it appears NewsMax retarded titling caused the issue.

[hellinahandcart]

I seriously doubt that, after Fresno settled a defamation suit only last week, FR is going to let stand a title calling Reyes a bigot. :D

Anyway, the question was why the earlier article didn't show up on a search, and that's why. Searching "Bigot's Attack" wouldn't have yielded this article.

[G.Mason]

City Attorney Hilda Cantu Montoy ....... "It's not in any way admitting any liability by any party."

Asked by reporters why she was so small, Hilda said ....... " I'm only five years old!

[TheSpottedOwl]

Great news! I wonder which non profit group Ms. Reyes is now working for? I think that the parties involved in this smear should have publicly apologized. Oh well, at least they had to cough up some bucks :-)

[jonno]

5 years old - LOL!

[new cruelty]

I've a little time to kill today...

Actually, if one was to search by the newsmax title, the original article would still show up...

Searching for 'Bigot's Attack on Free Republic Costs $60,000'- order by relevance ...

The original post, 'Fresno will pay $60,000 to forum' by Johnny_Cipher on News/Activism 01/13/2004 8:47:45 AM EST with 367 comments, shows up somewhere near the bottom of the list, right above this gem- 'Fart' costs bank 100,000 dollars posted by UnklGene on General Interest (Chat) 08/28/2003 7:57:32 PM EDT with 46 comments

Thank you for that interesting article UnklGene. Love the keywords. :)

[Redbob]

"Former Human Relations Commission Chairwoman Debbie Reyes, who sent out the news release in September and who resigned this month, said the city should have "stuck it out and fought it."

Brave words from a quitter!

[ItsOurTimeNow]

"I hate Fresno Nazis!"

[TheSpottedOwl]

The Publications constitute defamation (i.e. libel and/or slander per se) based upon Civil Code Sections 45 and 46 (as well as other statutory and judicial authority): Libel. The California Legislature has defined libel as a "false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation." (Cal. Civ. Code § 45.) Slander. The California Legislature has defined slander as "a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: (1) Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; … (3) Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits." (Cal. Civ. Code § 46.) E. AMOUNT OF CLAIM: Claimant seeks general damages for loss of reputation, shame and mortification. Claimant seeks special damages with respect to damages it has suffered to its business, trade, profession or occupation. Finally, claimant requests exemplary damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the responsible public employees/agents for making the defamatory Publications with actual malice. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the public employees/agents possessed a state of mind arising from the ill will toward the claimant, and did not have a good faith belief in the truth of the defamatory Publications. Accordingly, the acts of public employees were made with actual malice, and were fraudulent and justify the imposition of punitive damages.

Interesting. I bookmarked the thread. Someone brought something to my attention last year,regarding what my ex said to fellow employees at Northrop Grumman when we got divorced. It was a pretty disgusting piece of projection. I don't even want my kids to attend the company picnics because of this.

[stevio]

Congratulations!!!

[elfman2]

"Robinson said he plans to use the settlement money to travel across the country in a motor home visiting Free Republic chapters. He will end the trip in Washington, D.C. "

LOL! Fow what it's worth, I guess you’ve more than earned a vacation. Sincerely, Congratulations!

[Wayland]

Would passage of tort reform, which is so popular here, prevent people like Jim R. from exercising their rights like this?

[Blzbba]

Is that why the latest FR fund drive was accomplished so quickly? :)

Way to go!!!

[Texas_Dawg]

LOL! Fow what it's worth, I guess you’ve more than earned a vacation.

You support people suing the government when one of its employees says something bad about someone simply so that the plaintiff can collect an out-of-court cash settlement at the taxpayers' expense? Sorry. I don't.

[woofie]

way to go Jim

I hereby declare this a "love group"

[elfman2]

"You support people suing the government when one of its employees says something bad about someone simply so that the plaintiff can collect an out-of-court cash settlement at the taxpayers' expense? Sorry. I don't. "

You support government’s immunity to target opposition groups with fallacious and damaging charges while denying them compensation under the laws that apply to actual damages by every other entity. Sorry, I don’t.

[Texas_Dawg]

Why not just sue for a retraction and apology?

[elfman2]

"Why not just sue for a retraction and apology?"

The article mentioned something about that, ”"I think it's unfortunate the city did not retract and apologize immediately after they knew they were in the wrong," Robinson said.”. My guess is that if you have to go to the trouble to sue to get a retraction and an apology, there’s no incentive to give it without suing.

[Texas_Dawg]

My guess is that if you have to go to the trouble to sue to get a retraction and an apology, there’s no incentive to give it without suing.

So sue and then settle for the apology as well as the money for your time and legal expenses. $60,000 for free vacations on the taxpayers because someone called you a bad name? Sounds like a nice Democrat Trial Lawyers Union move.