CT Blue

Chris Powell, of the Manchester Journal Inquirer, has been threatened with a libel suit by the World Wide Wrestling company. The offending prose is as follows:

If, having spent several times more money than had ever been spent on a campaign in Connecticut, a candidate isn’t known well enough, whose fault would that be? But of course nearly everyone knew very well who McMahon was — that was the problem. Her practical qualifications for office did not extend beyond her fantastic wealth, and that wealth derived from the business of violence, pornography, and general raunch.

(via The Darien Times)

Powell appears to have responded to a letter demanding a retraction appropriately:

As the May 25 article pointed out, Powell’s column did not mention the Stamford-based WWE. “But answering Flinn by email the editor asked if WWE wanted the letter published in the newspaper and if lawsuit depositions — preparatory interrogations of witnesses — could be undertaken before the Republican Senate primary Aug. 14, adding that he was eager to meet ’Trish’, the shapely actress featured in an infamous WWE program in which McMahon’s husband, Vince, instructs her to undress down to her bra and panties, kneel in the wrestling ring, and bark like a dog in front of an audience of thousands. She complies.”

(via The Darien Times)

Some of the legal aspects of this are discussed here (forgive me, I’m linking to a Republican, but the analysis is basically correct), but I think the emphasis on the actual malice standard is misplaced. The problem with the lawsuit would be more fundamental than that, putting aside that the potential plaintiff is never mentioned in the alleged libel.

As Justice Stewart so famously said, in reference to pornography of the hard core sort: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…”

Libel requires proof that someone has uttered a factual untruth about the plaintiff. It rarely reaches expressions of opinion. If even a Supreme Court justice feels privileged to use an “I know it when I see it standard”, it seems only fair to let Powell use the same standard. If hard core pornography is impossible to define, pornography of the softer sort is even more so. One man’s pornography is another’s harmless entertainment, and it’s unlikely in the extreme that any court would hold that characterizing simulated sex with a dead body or the “Trish” doggie scene mentioned above as pornography is not a legitimate expression of opinion. The letter from WWE’s lawyers even compares the entertainment it dishes out to Hollywood. Whether that’s fair to Hollywood or not, the fact is that the works of that city of sin are regularly denounced from many a pulpit.

So, the letter is simply at attempt at intimidation, and Powell’s “bring it on” response is entirely appropriate. Should the WWE do so, then once again the question will arise as to whether, as in 2010, the WWE is impermissibly contributing to the McMahon campaign.