The alumni news letter of American University printed the announcement that Ross Weil and Brett Royce have gotten married and that Ross has been named chief operating officer of the Gay Rights Brigade. Unfortunately, it is not true and was submitted to the magazine as a prank. Now the university is facing a $1.5 million lawsuit for defamation. I'll admit that the 'gay rights brigade' is pretty suspect and should have raised some warning flags, but to claim that the university was being malicious seems over the top. As an active member of my alumni association, I can sympathize with American Magazine. We are constantly seeking updates and contact information for alumni, and regularly trusting that the information we have been given is accurate. However, libel and poor fact checking are two different issues.
It seems to me that in order to call this defamation (even unintentional) you have to prove that being called homosexual can tarnish your reputation. How can you do that and at the same time claim that, "It has nothing to do with homophobia?" It may not be about the clients homophobia, but if it isn't then it is about their fear of homophobs. Somebody's homophobia has to be a factor. Reputation is a finicky thing that can't be destroyed by one person. That person needs an audience. So the question becomes, what kind of power do the alumni of American University have over Ross Weil and Brett Royce that the perception of the two of them as gay causes $1.5 million dollars in damage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
+321.jpg)
1 comment:
i wonder what fields the two wrongly updated alumni are in. that may have something to do with their excessive lawsuit. i think that in any other instance of simple misinformation (say they reported john smith and jane doe were married) would have called for a retraction and a couple of laughs. to declare being misrepresented as gay to be libel is outrageous. homosexuality is not illegal. it's not "criminalized" anymore, though i'm sure some could argue against me.
the fact is, the alumni who are suing fear their good reputations, and thus their masculinities, are in jeopardy so an ostentatious and ridiculous law suit is their remedy to reclaim credibility in society.
and that's really sad.
here's something to think about: what if one of the men were gay and the alumni newsletter reported that he married a woman? would that be grounds for a lawsuit?
Post a Comment