I approach the news of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's separation from his wife Erin with trepidation for a couple reasons. My own parents divorced when my brother and I were only a few years older than the Ravenstahls' son. I hope it doesn't come to that for the mayor's family. My parents' parting was as amicable as it could be, but you couldn't call it fun.
In any case, while I've certainly had differences with Ravenstahl's public policies, I don't care about his personal life.
What interests me more is the news, tucked down into other media accounts, that the Ravenstahls have retained Philadelphia attorney Richard A. Sprague "to address privacy matters."
How big a deal is Sprague? Among other things, he has taken on the state's largest newspaper -- and the American Bar Association -- and won.
It's been noted elsewhere already that Sprague once had state Senator Vince Fumo (D-Philadelphia) as a client. Another previous client was basketball star Allen Iverson, who in 2002 was cleared of gun charges after Sprague's "grueling cross-examination" punched holes in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Long before that, Sprague prosecuted Tony Boyle for the 1969 murder of Jock Yablonski, a Pittsburgh-born labor leader who sought to reform the United Mineworkers, and who was killed for his trouble. (You can watch a 45-minute video of Sprague talking about the case here.)
Sprague has taken on the media too.
In 1990, a jury awarded Sprague a $34 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer. (Years before, the paper had accused Sprague, who then worked in the Philadelphia DA's office, of quashing a murder investigation.) It was said to be the largest verdict ever against a news organization, though the amount was later reduced, and the Inquirer's owner settled for an undisclosed sum.
As celebrated lawyer F. Lee Bailey wrote in a foreword to a biography of Sprague, "Sprague is not afraid of anybody. He's not afraid of the biggest newspaper in the state ... or the toughest union bosses."
He also wasn't afraid of the American Bar Association. Sprague took them to court too. And that book Bailey wrote the foreword to? Publishing it was reportedly part of the settlement.
According to the Legal Intelligencer (reg. req'd) and other accounts, Sprague objected to a 2000 ABA Journal article that described him as "perhaps the most powerful lawyer-cum-fixer" in the state. The ABA maintained that the phrase was meant to praise Sprague, but Sprague noted that "fixer" has negative connotations as well.
Eventually, the ABA and Sprague settled, with the Bar Association issuing a statement that read, in part, "[W]e did not intend to disparage Mr. Sprague in any way. Rather,we intended the word to mean someone who is skilled in resolving problems in high-profile, complex cases. We apologize to Mr. Sprague for the personal distress that resulted from our choice of words."
The settlement reportedly also involved a pledge by the ABA to "pay for the publication of Sprague's biography, written by Philadelphia Daily News reporter Joseph R. Daughen."
So let there be no doubt: Richard A. Sprague is one heck of a lawyer. And just in case there is any question whatsoever about this, I intend that phrase to mean he is skilled in resolving problems in high-profile, complex cases.
-- E-mail Chris Potter about this post.
Share this article:
|
|
|
|
|
The announcement of the seperation of the Mayor is for reasons I cant figure out at all. How dare he choose his position over that of his family. He has stated that the reason for the seperation was due to the fact his wife didnt like the public life or the fact that he was the mayor. So, what does he do??? Run for mayor again...Surely this has been an issue in the household for quite some time. He has known how she felt, but yet he runs again. Where are his values?? Isnt his family more important than his career?? And what about the son?? Did either of them consider what effect this will have on him. Sorry but I lost all respect for this so-called mayor and any other major decisions he will have to make in the future. Im guessing he will be re-elected, but I will campaign against him every chance I get. With a decision like this, the "family values" went right down the gutter again.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
You're absolutely correct about that, Bram. As I said a little earlier, "There are legal precedents for subpoenaing IP addresses and other identifying information of people who post potentially libelous statements on blogs." I'm not sure who that subpoena would be served on -- that's a technical issue as much as a legal one, I imagine.
And in any case, you're right: The law IS murky. There's no Supreme Court precedent here, so different jurisdictions have been deciding things differently. I do think a consensus may be starting to emerge, though. A couple of courts -- in New Jersey, Maryland, and D.C. -- have set up similar standards for seeking identifying information for anonymous posters. Those standards basically require reasonable efforts to notify the poster, and to give the poster a chance to respond (or try to file a motion to quash any subpoena), and an adequate body of evidence to suggest a defamation claim has merit.
As for the "chilling effect" of such a suit on bloggers ... I think it's a legitimate thing to worry about. But I'm not sure that the rights of bloggers are the only ones worth considering. If I wrote something libelous in this blog about the mayor, or whoever, I could be sued. If that possibility doesn't shock the conscience, why is it so awful to hold commenters responsible for what THEY write? A newspaper can be sued for material printed in a letter to the editor; why is this any different?
I'm just putting out an argument here. I go back and forth on this stuff myself. (On the other side of the ledger, is it fair to hold a blog -- whose audience may number in the dozens or hundreds -- to the same standards as a newspaper with a circulation in the tens of thousands? Can non-reporters fairly be held to the standard that professional journalists are?) But these are the questions that arise when a media platform grows up, I guess.
I will say that in the days since the mayor's separation, I have seen a posted comment or two floating around that could, assuming the assertions are untrue, provide an interesting test case for these questions. Not saying that will happen, or that it would even be a smart thing for the mayor to do. (Among other things, it would only call attention to the potentially libelous claim.) I'm just saying that if a very aggressive, highly effective lawyer wanted to "make something of it," the raw material may be out there.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
That's reassuring, but my understanding is that that does not prevent a blogger from being subpoenaed into surrendering access to his or her IP tracking information for that blog's readers and commenters ... if in fact that's the way it works, it may be the publisher (in my case, Google) who would get subpoenaed directly. Because the law on whether and when libelous commenters are legitimate targets for libel suits is murky.
It's been argued to me that it would be awful if that ever happened on the local scene, because it would have a chilling effect on blog participation. To me honestly, I wouldn't be offended at the opportunity to establish legal clarity in these matters, and even to illustrate lessons to these kinds of users.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Hahahaha. I'll BET you would, troublemaker. Although I'm surprised -- this stuff hasn't come up at a Podcamp or other gathering?
Anyway, it's section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
What that boils down to is that YOU can't be held liable in a defamation suit for information someone ELSE posts on your site. There's tons more about it here:
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230
And of course googling the CDA Section 230 will turn up a bunch of other references. It's a popular provision on the internet, not surprisingly.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
"And bloggers themselves enjoy broad protection from what third-parties post on their sites."
If you could source that for me I'd be appreciative.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
@ PghLesbian ... I can't speak to the legal issues surrounding Twitter, and of course I'm not a lawyer.
But I CAN tell you that when it comes to allegations made in blog "comment" sections, say, the law remains unsettled. There are legal precedents for subpoenaing IP addresses and other identifying information of people who post potentially libelous statements on blogs. My understanding is that the burden there is pretty high -- you typically have to have a pretty strong defamation claim in order for a judge to take that step. (And bloggers themselves enjoy broad protection from what third-parties post on their sites.) But it has happened elsewhere.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
Mail Article
Print Article
Add to favorites