Posted on 08/14/2005 8:09:01 AM PDT by Byron Norris
SAN FRANCISCO -- A San Francisco man who says he was devastated after he was identified as gay on a national Spanish-language radio show will be paid $270,000 by Univision Radio, an arbitrator has ruled. Roberto Hernandez, 45, was driving to work in 2002 when he received a phone call from a man who said that he met Hernandez at a San Francisco gay bar. The caller then announced that the conversation was being broadcast live on the "Raul Brindis and Pepito Show," based in Houston. Hernandez worked for the local station that broadcast the show, and sold advertising for the program. He said he was so depressed by the incident that he could no longer work. "It's a nightmare," Hernandez said. "How do you live with such an embarrassment in your life? How do you live when someone makes your life so insignificant? " Hernandez had been discreet about disclosing his sexual orientation before the incident, not even telling his family. Arbitrator Rebecca Westerfield found on Friday that Hernandez had suffered emotional distress but dismissed claims of sexual harassment. She said that Hernandez had no choice but to quit his job and was owed workers' compensation. Hernandez was awarded $250,000 and nearly $20,000 in economic damages because of the emotional distress that led to seven months of unemployment after quitting his job. Univision attorneys declined to comment on the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I don't understand this. I thought that truth was the ultimate defense. It can't be slander because slander only covers false statements. They outed the queer and it hurt his feelings. So what? What legal avenue does he have for that? Well, apparently he found one and got a quarter million dollars.
I think in Texas it's called being a muyate.
Maricon seems to work equally well, too!
Not so. This is part of a movement to keep our private lives private. Before our lives are broadcast in the media there needs to be a reason why the public should know. If you are running for office or are doing something else that puts you in the public eye that is one thing. If you are quietly living your life as a private citizen then you should be left in peace.
This used to be the norm. Now it seems that it is not. If this is allowed then none of us are safe from public humiliation so some twit can have a cheap laugh at our expense.
Certainly there is no way we can prevent people from gossiping about us. But we can prevent them from profiting from it.
Since “Hernandez worked for the local station that broadcast the show, and sold advertising for the program,” wasn't he kinda public figure in a way? And since when are gay bars private?
Sure he should feel embarrassed, but why is he getting money for his embarrassment?
Here's a case and the relevant regulation is included.
I did a stint at a community station... putting people on the air with our their knowledge was a major no-no. Worse than the F-word.
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/FCC-05-11A1.html
". . . this guy would be proud to be outed. There seems to be a disconnect in their thinking."
In fairness, some gays do want privacy. I don't really know how "private" this guy's life was, since he was openly seen at gay bars, though. But maybe he had tried to keep it discreet from his family.
"Not that there is anything wrong with that"?
If there isn't anything wrong with being gay - then why sue?
If you are gay and someone says your gay - then you can't sue them for lying - can you? What grounds were used? It's not a secret - if you are hanging in gay bars. There isn't a placard in the gay bar saying, "what happens here, stays here!"
This is crap!
This story gives me a headache.
Are you saying that someone can be sued for reporting the truth? If courts, juries and judges accept this, our system is done for.
It is not a question of "hurt feelings", but of privacy and slander. In American law, you can say most anything about so-called "public" figures (i.e,. politicians, celebrities, etc.), so long as you do not know the information to be untrue. Private individuals, in contrast, are more protected by privacy laws. It is especially applicable in this case, because it is very difficult for the plaintiff to prove that he's not gay. It is simply a "he said - (s)he said" situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.