Court upholds libel award against environmental group

Associated Press ^ | December 7, 2006 | PAUL DAVENPORT

[george76]

An Arizona appeals court on Wednesday upheld a jury’s $600,000 judgment in favor of a rancher in a defamation lawsuit, rejecting an environmental group’s argument that documents it posted on the Internet were shielded by the First Amendment.

The Court of Appeals upheld a Pima County Superior Court jury’s award of compensatory and punitive damages to Jim Chilton in his lawsuit against the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit with offices in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, D.C.

A lawyer for the rancher said the appellate court had stood up for a person wrongly defamed, while an attorney for the center said the ruling trampled citizens’ right to petition for redress of grievances.

Chilton contended he and his business, Chilton Ranch and Cattle Co., were defamed by false postings the center made on its Web site.

The posting referred to alleged overgrazing on Chilton’s grazing allotment ,issued by the U.S. Forest Service for 21,500 acres in the Arivaca area northwest of Nogales, Ariz.

The center unsuccessfully opposed the 10-year renewal granted for Chilton’s grazing permit, and the group subsequently posted links to the center’s appeal and related photographs on its Web site.

The trial jury found the center made false statements in photo captions, including one that implied that grazing by Chilton’s cattle was responsible for damage actually caused by hundreds of people, including the photographer, who attended a May Day festival.

Kraig Marton, a lawyer for Chilton, said he was pleased by the ruling. “We hope that this sends a message to anyone who would wrongly defame any good person,’’ ...

[george76]

Will the Arizona Supreme Court accept an appeal ?

.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

I've been watching this case for some time, and am glad that Chilton is winning across the board against these eco-freaks. They really needed to be put in their place!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467293/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468566/posts

[george76]

Thanks for your links.

"The Arizona EnviroTaliban Lose one! "

ht sandrat too

[george76]

One for the good guys.

[Carry_Okie]

I hope that the CBD keeps pushing the case and the courts keep piling up the costs on CBD. The stronger this precedent is, the better.

I also want to see who writes the check to rebuild their treasury. My bet is it's either a sweetheart suit with an agency or a sugardaddy land racketeer like Ted Turner.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Get that judgment docketed ASAP and go hunting for assets before they can close down their offices. Executing a judgment against these groups is like nailing jelly to a tree. They have multiple "offices" which may just be a P.O. Box and a fax machine.

[dangus]

Well, the CBD gets a free link out of each piece of publicity.

[Captain Rhino]

The article at the link says (scroll down to the bottom) that the center has already paid the judgement.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Good going, Mr. Chilton. Sam Steiger would be proud!

[Bigh4u2]

"while an attorney for the center said the ruling trampled citizens’ right to petition for redress of grievances."

I'm pretty sure that only applies to the government and not a private citizen..

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I bet they paid an appeal bond, though it's possible they paid the amount of the judgment into the registry of the court ending the outcome of the appeal process. In any event it's a good win.

[Carry_Okie]

Well, the CBD gets a free link out of each piece of publicity.

As long as that link is associated with dishonesty, corruption, and influence peddling, I'm happy with that.

[Captain Rhino]

I agree. These "rights" outfits like to use the courts to beat up people who disagree with them. Nice to see the roles reversed for a change.

[SandRat]

Trust me,.... these Enviro-Creeps will now take this case to the 9th Circus to try and win.

[bert]

.....I've been watching this case......

Do they have 600k to pay the judgement?

Are individuals named too?

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

"rejecting an environmental group’s argument that documents it posted on the Internet were shielded by the First Amendment."

Well they are, but the first amendment doesn't absolve them of all responsibilities for what they post, just says they have a right to post it.

[dirtbiker]

I've been watching this case for some time, and am glad that Chilton is winning across the board against these eco-freaks. They really needed to be put in their place!

Even so, they will be back in a year or two. These morons never quit, even when they are TOTALLY destroyed, the best you can hope for is a few years peace....

[george76]

I often smell Ted Turner behind the curtain.

What a POS.

[Buzwardo]

Bttt