Tweet
The Volokh Conspiracy
May 4, 2012 Friday 11:30 PM EST
"Call Me Irresponsible, Call Me Unreliable, Throw in Undependable Too"
I blogged about Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. v. Bruininks (8th
Cir. May 3, 2012) when the district court decision came down, and
yesterday the Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court's bottom
line (though disagreed with the district court's decision about
standing). I think the District Court and the Eighth Circuit both got
it quite right - the defendant university's labeling the Turkish
Coalition's site "unreliable" and advising students against relying on
the site in their research papers doesn't violate the Coalition's
First Amendment rights, and is also not actionable libel:
TCA alleges that the defendants defamed it by stating that TCA's
website (1) engages in "denial" of the Armenian genocide in Turkey
during World War I, (2) is "unreliable," (3) presents a "strange mix
of fact and opinion," and (4) is an "illegitimate source of
information." ...
With regard to the first challenged statement, TCA argues that the
Center's accusation of "denial" is false because the term "denial," in
the context of genocide studies, is a term of art that implies denial
of well-documented underlying facts associated with a genocidal event.
TCA points out that its website does not deny certain underlying
historical facts about the fate of Armenians in Turkey during World
War I, such as that "certainly hundreds of thousands of Armenians died
during" what it characterizes as "the Armenian revolt." Under TCA's
interpretation, however, the term "denial" would merely express a
subjective evaluation of the credibility of the historical sources for
every assertion on the TCA website, many of which TCA admits are
"contested." Such an evaluation of credibility is essentially an
opinion, "not capable of being proven true or false," and thus not
actionable in defamation, because different historians might well come
to different conclusions. On the other hand, the "denial" statement
reasonably can be construed as stating simply that the TCA website
denies that the treatment of Armenians within Turkey during World War
I meets the definition of the term "genocide." A statement about the
content of the TCA website is capable of being proven true or false.
Because the TCA website does, in fact, state that it is "highly
unlikely that a genocide charge could be sustained against the Ottoman
government or its successor" based on the historical evidence, the
Center's statement under this interpretation is true and, thus, still
not actionable....
The remaining three statements can be interpreted reasonably only as
subjective opinions, rather than facts.
May 4, 2012 Friday 11:30 PM EST
"Call Me Irresponsible, Call Me Unreliable, Throw in Undependable Too"
I blogged about Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. v. Bruininks (8th
Cir. May 3, 2012) when the district court decision came down, and
yesterday the Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court's bottom
line (though disagreed with the district court's decision about
standing). I think the District Court and the Eighth Circuit both got
it quite right - the defendant university's labeling the Turkish
Coalition's site "unreliable" and advising students against relying on
the site in their research papers doesn't violate the Coalition's
First Amendment rights, and is also not actionable libel:
TCA alleges that the defendants defamed it by stating that TCA's
website (1) engages in "denial" of the Armenian genocide in Turkey
during World War I, (2) is "unreliable," (3) presents a "strange mix
of fact and opinion," and (4) is an "illegitimate source of
information." ...
With regard to the first challenged statement, TCA argues that the
Center's accusation of "denial" is false because the term "denial," in
the context of genocide studies, is a term of art that implies denial
of well-documented underlying facts associated with a genocidal event.
TCA points out that its website does not deny certain underlying
historical facts about the fate of Armenians in Turkey during World
War I, such as that "certainly hundreds of thousands of Armenians died
during" what it characterizes as "the Armenian revolt." Under TCA's
interpretation, however, the term "denial" would merely express a
subjective evaluation of the credibility of the historical sources for
every assertion on the TCA website, many of which TCA admits are
"contested." Such an evaluation of credibility is essentially an
opinion, "not capable of being proven true or false," and thus not
actionable in defamation, because different historians might well come
to different conclusions. On the other hand, the "denial" statement
reasonably can be construed as stating simply that the TCA website
denies that the treatment of Armenians within Turkey during World War
I meets the definition of the term "genocide." A statement about the
content of the TCA website is capable of being proven true or false.
Because the TCA website does, in fact, state that it is "highly
unlikely that a genocide charge could be sustained against the Ottoman
government or its successor" based on the historical evidence, the
Center's statement under this interpretation is true and, thus, still
not actionable....
The remaining three statements can be interpreted reasonably only as
subjective opinions, rather than facts.