Source: Snuffle Guppy
It has occurred to me, from my years of online inhabitation, that people love to fling about the threat of a lawsuit but never really follow through. The sad truth is that most people apparently can’t tell their ears from their eyes when demanding reparations. The most frequent accusation that I’ve seen is that we bloggers are slanderers. I don’t know why the word “slander” has become shorthand for defamation but it seems to be the most commonly used term when someone has something dislikeable uttered about her or him.
I felt it was worthwhile to do a couple of posts on the law of defamation so that when people become unhappy with what I have written, they can consult these series of posts to correctly phrase their legal threat. Or maybe bloggers can realize that there are some defenses.
Defamation = Libel or Slander
Defamation is a legal term which is defined as the untruthful statements of fact made to a third party that causes damage to a person’s reputation. From the Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another’s reputation or good name. Holding up of a person to ridicule, scorn or contempt in a respectable and considerable part of the community; may be criminal or civil which includes libel or slander.
Defamation is that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him. Statement which exposes person to contempt, hatred, ridicule or obloquy. The unprivileged publication of false statements which naturally and proximately result in injury to another.
Defamation can either be published orally or in writing. Oral defamation, that which can be heard with the ears, is referred to as slander. Written defamation, that which can be read with the eyes, is referred to as libel. For anything that is transmitted via the interwebs, the claim will always be “I am going to sue you for libel” rather than “you slandered me”.
The minute someone uses the word “slander” in conjunction with something that is written, bells should go off indicating that the accuser has no knowledge of the law and has not been in contact with anyone who has knowledge of the law.
SLAPP
A lawsuit brought against a blogger for making an unfavorable statement can be a SLAPP or “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”. George W. Pring and Penelope Canan coined the term in its law review article, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, 7 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 3, 4 (1989). California was one of the first states to enact an anti-SLAPP provision. Calif. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16. The beginning of the chapter states the purpose:
The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.
The hallmark of a SLAPP suit is that it lacks merit. For example, if someone were to threaten a blog owner for making them look foolish for posting plagiaristic material, it is likely that the court would view that suit as lacking in merit and designed to quell the valid exercise of free speech.
How a lawsuit works is essentially this. Someone files a document accusing another of wrongdoing. The person doing the accusing is called the Petitioner or Complainant. The person accused of wrongdoing is called the Defendant. The document containing the accusations is called a Petition or Complaint. The Petition looks like this:
Unhappy Person,
The Plaintiff
v.
MeanGirl,
The Defendant
* * * *
Case No.
COMPLAINT
* * * *
Wherein the Unhappy Person states the following in support of her Unhappiness:
1. The Unhappy Person, of a certain county, has been made unhappy by MeanGirl.
2. MeanGirl did x, y, and double z wrong.
3. X, Y, and Double Z caused Unhappy Person to become Unhappy.
4. Many damages ensue.
5. Damages result of X, Y and Double Z done by MeanGirl.
Wherefore Unhappy Person respectfully prays the Court punish MeanGirl in all the ways including ones that are not on the books; but, if nothing else, in all ways that are just and equitable.
Massachusetts, a state in which certain agents base their business, has an anti-SLAPP provision. The anti-SLAPP provision allows the MeanGirl Defendant to ask the court to dismiss, or throw out, the Unhappy Petition.
In a 2003 case, MacDonald v. Paton, a website owner was sued for defamation by a political figure for content the owner placed on her site. MacDonald v. Paton, 782 N.E.2d 1089 (2003). The Unhappy Person was referred to as “Gestapo agent” in the Athol Daily News. Paton’s, the MeanGirl, site included a section called the “The First Dictionary of Athonics” and after the Athol Daily News piece, Paton wrote up the following definition:
“nazi - not see 1. A political affiliation whose platform espouses military dictatorship, racial cleansing, eugenics and intolerance. 2. In Athol, a term sometimes used to describe certain selectmen who wish to ignore most issues except for those which place them firmly in bed with chiefs of police. (see Old Macdonald had a gun, E - I - E - I - Oh shit).”
The Unhappy Person, the politician, brought a defamation suit against a number of individuals including Paton, the MeanGirl owner of the now defunct website. Paton filed for a special motion to dismiss according to the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP provision. G. L. c. 231, § 59H. The Massachusetts Appellate Court found that the petition should be dismissed for several reasons:
- First, the anti-SLAPP statute applies to cases in which both the Unhappy Person and MeanGirl are persons of modest means; Id. at 1093.
- Second, it is applicable to defamation actions; Id.
- Third, by having the site as a forum for speech by citizens of the community of the city, the website “served as a technological version of a meeting of citizens on the Town Green, a space where concerned individuals could come together to share information, express political opinions, and rally on town issues of concern to the community." Id. at 1093-94.
A previous Massachusetts case interpreting the anti-SLAPP provisions found that petitioning includes “reporting violations of law”. See Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Prods. Corp., 427 Mass. 156, 161-162, 691 N.E.2d 935 (1998). Like us, reporting on the posting of plagiaristic material.
Under the anti-SLAPP statute, once a court grants a special motion to dismiss, the MeanGirl is awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as well as appellate fees and costs. This is not within the discretion of the court. The court MUST award them, meaning not only is the Unhappy Person out her attorneys’ fees, but she has to pay MeanGirl’s attorneys’ fees and costs. And let me tell you, MeanGirl would hire very a expensive attorney, just for the fun of it.
So, for bloggers everywhere, you might want to be aware that there are protections for you in some states, such as the anti-SLAPP provisions. I wonder how many complaints ever result in an actual lawsuit. Instead, you have SEAPPs (coined by me without a corresponding law review article as far as I can tell via Google) or Strategic Emails Against Public Participation. SEAPPs are employed by the Unhappy Persons with the hopes of frightening individuals unfamiliar with the law into not speaking out. We here at Dear Author know the law and aren’t afraid to use it.
Next week, we will take a look at statement of fact v. statement of opinion.
Unhappy Person picked the wrong MeanGirl to screw around with!
Very edjamacational! and easy to understand. Excellent explanation.
Jane: Suppressing your feelings this way can’t be healthy. Why don’t you come out and say what you really think? {grin}
Thanks for a great post.
And it’s day six and the Unhappy Person still has the plagiarized material up at her website.
I need to bookmark this one. Unfortunately, I think it will be beyond those at whom it was aimed. But for those of us meangirls in the crowd *snort*, it’s nice to know.
(I’m wondering if a Double Z might be DIZZO!)
Countersuit:
Mean Girl, the Plaintiff
v.
Unhappy Person,
The Defendant
* * * *
In the Court of Bring It On, You and Your Diddlos
Case No.
COMPLAINT
* * * *
1. Had the Plaintiff not caught the plagiarism and not posted it, Defendant would have proceeded with publication of plagiarized material
2. Had the plagiarized work been published, Scary Huge Publisher would slap Defendant with a giant lawsuit
3. Scary Huge Publisher would win the lawsuit and some monetary damages would have been awarded
ERGO:
Plaintiff kept Defendant from suffering a financial ruin, therefore Plaintiff should be compensated for her services.*
Jane, why won’t your blog let me style a case properly? All my brackets were messed up :(
~And it’s day six and the Unhappy Person still has the plagiarized material up at her website.~
She must be so proud of her purchased, plagiarized words. I imagine she plays her diddlo every time she reads them.
Sheesh. And she’s still plagiarizing, in addition to leaving up the original plagiarism–her “new” prologue is a pretty much exact retelling of the Gemmell one without the style or skill.
loving this.
Nice, Jane :)
As to that person, my guess is that she has not received communication from the estate of David Gemmell … yet. *shrug*
It is very easy to drop the word “lawsuit” here in the USA. It’s pretty much a generic term now used as an equivalent of “f**k off”. :P
What an awesome post. Good one.
Wow. Thank you. This is really enlightening. Unfortunately I think most of it will fly right over the heads of certain Unhappy peoples.
linking to it.
That website is screaming in agony.
Needs more tin foil.
So, I have a question. Would this apply if you were hypothetically wrong? I mean, say you did the whole post WITHOUT the research and just said “That person is plagiarizing her work”. And say that many believed you, even though you didn’t “prove” it. Would all of the anti-SLAPP laws apply to mischief?
I’m asking because it’s scary how much MISinformation there is out there. Is there any protection for someone who is being lied about?
It seems like some can throw around online accusations of all kinds of things and not held accountable. What say you?
All that’s missing now are alien abductions - maybe Christopher Hill was an alien?????
*snerk*
But really, if you’re going to intimidate someone, wouldn’t you want to inform yourself about the legal concepts that you’re throwing about, and whether they’re actually applicable?
It does seem that some people use shows as Law & Order as a source of their legal knowledge instead of seriously consulting their legal counsel.
And yeah, threatening to sue does unfortunately seem to chill free speech…
Even on Judge Judy (yes, this is how I keep up with the law), she’ll get a case or two like this where someone posts something crude or not very nice on MySpace, etc. All she does is tell the defendant what they did wasn’t a very nice thing, but at the end of the day it is not actionable, case dismissed.
Honestly, if someone was serious about suing anyone about anything, they wouldn’t blab to the whole world about it, they’d just do it.
I followed the link to the agent’s website and found this:
“…that will print, staple or comb bind your work. You can purchase one copy as a momento…”
Am I the only one who suspects the agent and the “author” are the same person? I’m basing this suspicion solely on the wacko spellings and word combinations.
Has anyone ever seen both of them in the same room?
Darlene, there have been moments on the Making Light website where you know it’s one of the two parties posting, but because of the way they shift tenses and what they’re protesting back and forth, you can’t tell which on it actually is. Also, I believe I saw a reference that LL has been published in Pillsbury’s Angus Grady books, which are based on Pillsbury’s Forever Knight fan fic (and published with Publish America, that bastion of quality reading), so there’s a fairly long interconnection.
I’m not saying they are the same person — the last thing this mess needs is another plot twist — but I sometimes wonder if they post for each other.
This is the ultimate head desker: according to Mimi in the other post:
That’s okay, according to Unhappy Person, she say she is “… guilty of just being stupid, right now I don’t even know my name, I am kinda like duh! So please forgive me. I have permission to post this news paper article, with God as my witness, I am only guily of being stupid and I appreciate whatever
any one tries to do to help me.”
Of course, when asked on her guestbook why the excerpt is still up after 5 days, she replies with “I really don’t know that one, Gail, something to do with my computer modem”.
!
Very nice piece, Jane. Now the next time someone defames me on the myspaces I can go after them and shut them up good!!!!
Seriously though, I hope that people will stop accusing bloggers of “slander” and threatening legal action. It is so 1990’s.
“She must be so proud of her purchased, plagiarized words. I imagine she plays her diddlo every time she reads them.”
She sure as hell paid enough for them. I guess she wants to get her money’s worth.
I love you, Jane. This is the best birthday present ever.
Ms. McKenzie, you are getting ahead of the class. Tsk. Tsk.
There is no easy answer to this because defamation law is different depending on whether the person allegedly being defamed is a public figure. The standard is much higher to prove defamation because you have to prove “actual malice” if the information printed or said is actually untrue. (Truth is always a defense even if the person defamed with malice).
Essentially you would have to prove that the alleged defamer acted “in willful or wanton disregard” of the truth. It’s tough and the reason is that defamation is a restraint on a First Amendment fundamental right of free speech v. the right of reputation, not a fundamental right. So under your sceario, if you did the post without research that could very well be “in willful and wanton disregard” of the truth and the rights of the allegedly defamed.
Pennsylvania has the concept of “Slander per se” and that is very powerful. Sometime in your discussion you should warn speakers and writers to be aware of what can be utterly defenseless commentary.
Everything seems to be off the website of Long Story Short now.
Woot!
Her paraphrased excerpt is gone, too, which surprises me — unfortunately, there is a note that she still intends to publish Of Atlantis in the future (but maybe that’s wishful thinking on her part? Any future publication will, I imagine, be one of the things addressed by Gemmell’s estate or whoever is representing the author.)
Someone with teeth must have threatened her.
Either she heard from Gemmell’s attorney or this post of Jane’s made her see the light.
Or maybe SallyQ’s request made them rethink leaving the excerpt posted. And it seems that the paraphrased part is also gone.
I’m thinking it’s probably SallyQ. It’s nice to see it down.
Re: slander per se - that applies to slander, right? Well, since these are written communications, is there such a concept in libel?
Plus, isn’t there a difference between opinion and fact, and then the issue of the truth?
I just read over the original huge, ginormous thread and this follow-up. I’m glad the story ends the way it should, with the excerpt being taken down as it should have been. But man, I haven’t laughed and boggled so much in a long time.
Yes, there are two forms of defamation: per se and per quod. There is a different standard of proof for each type of defamation. Per se being the easiest to prove. The difference between the types of defamation depends upon the statements made.
There is a difference between fact/opinion as well as truth and I plan to go into all of those over the course of the next few weeks but I thought I would start with the SLAPP and move on from there given the timeliness of the topic.
Thanks for the information, Jane!
And I liked Lee’s comment on the other thread on libel vs. slander:
Fortunately, J. Jonah Jamison gives us a handy mnemonic in the first Spider-Man movie.
Robbie: “But Mr. Jamison… that’s slander!”
Jamison: “It is not!” [beat] “Slander is spoken. This is libel.”
Isn’t it fun to educate those who threaten to sue you? Everytime I see someone threaten to sue a blog owner for slander, I just laugh because their credibility flies out the window and if they do have a lawyer, I wonder if the law degree came from Acme University.
(Jane) The person doing the accusing is called the Petitioner or Complainant. The person accused of wrongdoing is called the Defendant.
Or these may be called the Plaintiff and Respondent, respectively, depending on jurisdiction.
(Denise Cassino) Be aware that you will be hearing from her lawyers.
Quite possibly along the lines of “We apologize on behalf of our client.”
I don’t want to complicate things too much, but in regard to the slander v. libel debate, there IS some discussion among legal scholars as to which category of defamation certain Internet content belongs, especially when the content is, for example, presented as a video on someone’s blog. Although I haven’t read anything that challenges the basic written v. spoken distinction. It’s just that with new technologies, that distinction is not always black and white, so to speak.
According to Cheryl she’s still planning to sue (me, at least).
I didn’t mean to get ahead of you, Jane. Now, I’d like to know if there’s a DEGREE of libel/slander. For example: Is it different to say “That person can’t write their way out of a paper bag” than to say “That person is racist”?
To me, the first is opinion–something to shrug off and ignore. The second is VERY different but ALSO opinion. Of course, in legal terms, “racist” may have an entirely seperate meaning but I’m thinking in terms of what can be said without legal ramifications. Or does it all hinge on how much damage to ones “reputation” it may have?
What about when one of my former students found one of my romances in Borders and wrote a blog startng that I was a “*&^%$ hack.” He also went to my web site and made comments about my looks. Is that defmation? I guess you could prove that I was a hack in a court of law. It’s a matter of perspective in terms of what constitutes hackdom. I guess you can not like my looks, either. But where is the line between opinion and libel/slander?
Not that I am racing to sue anyone.
Jessica
Quick note about the newspaper story - according to her yellbox , it’ll be in the Greensboro News and Record
One hopes the newspaper reporter will remember what they teach you in Newswriting 101: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out!”
Too often these days I see stories that look like they’re written from press releases. Very one sided.
Oh I like the sound of that. It’s been a while since I played my Diddlo, and I miss it.
Just when I was calming down, I read this by Victoria Strauss. Do I need to enumerate all the reasons that statement seems so wrong?
Looking forward to future installments - both on legal education and on Unhappy Person.
Particularly like “Invisible Cat Fight” !!
Is it different to say “That person can’t write their way out of a paper bag” than to say “That person is racist”?
and
But where is the line between opinion and libel/slander?
Yes, I think that there is. Next week I plan to talk about the difference between opinion and fact and sometimes that line is very thin. I’m pretty sure that “can’t write way out of paper bag” and “hack” and any comments on a person’s appearance is generally considered opinion.
Robin made me look up the race thing. Generally, the rule is that name calling is not actionable and that includes statements about someone being racist.
Suddenly I’m feeling awfully glad that two of my co-bloggers are lawyers.
Jane,
Nicely done. If I have to explain to one more person the difference between libel and slander I will go nuts. From now on, I’ll just send them here.
(That saying about how once you get into law school everyone you know will come at you for free legal advice? Never mind that you can’t give legal advice yet anyway? Totally true.)
KJ
Robin, I know. As if doing it once isn’t as bad as doing it multiple times. Once is really quite enough. And it doesn’t take two big names, or even one. It just takes copying someone else’s work and calling it yours.
I think Victoria believes this woman, and feels sincere sympathy. But that was a really bad example or comparison, imo.
Now she’s posting her prologue:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lanaia/message/347
But.. this is nothing like what she said was her original prologue.
I’m confused all over again.
oye.
Man, I miss all the good stuff. See? This is what happens when I do somebody a favor. Take a few weeks, go back to the old day job and train a new nurse, and see what I miss?
This is mind-boggling.
I take it that this Victoria Strauss is an author? Since she doesn’t see anything wrong with the complete denials and threats of lawsuits, and lack of any remorse I vote that she provide the poor pitiful and abused victim with her own manuscripts and allow Lanai to change the names and publish them as her very own. But funny I bet she won’t make the offer.
Michelle,
Victoria Strauss is one of the good guys. She’s co creator of Writer Beware, a great site for information on writing scams. This site did great work in exposing the alleged scams pulled by the same Christopher Hill mentioned by Mary/Lee as her ‘ghostwriter’.
Maybe you’re thinking of Cheryl Pillsbury who says she is Mary/Lee’s agent/friend?
Sorry Michelle, I see what you are referencing now–the text in Robins post. My bad.
Maybe Victoria will change her mind now that it’s Oct 16th, not Oct 12 and all the new info is in…including reports on Making light that Mary/Lee was informed she had plagerized Gemmell’s work as early as July!
I am not saying she is evil, but I fault her for minimizing plagerism, it is a big deal.
I can see what you mean….I hadn’t read Robin’s link yet.
You know, I’m reeeaally hesitant to use the “p” word; in fact, I’ve tried to avoid using it in these threads. Because like defamation, plagiarism involves one’s reputation. And it can be explosive. In Lee’s case, though, there’s really no mystery here because intentional or not, committed personally or not, she was, in fact, going to print with a book published in her name that contained copied material. And from what I understand, it spans more than one chapter, although even if it is only one chapter, isn’t six full pages enough to constitute a significant act of copying copyrighted material? It wasn’t a sentence here or there, or even a handful of paragraphs scattered throughout an otherwise brilliant and original work. It wasn’t a question of attribution or factual disposition (e.g. the Ian McEwan/Lucilla Andrews situation).
I don’t see Lee as the devil, or even as particularly malignant. I can believe that Hill scammed her, or rather, I have no more to disbelieve that assertion than I have to believe it. What really disturbed me about Strauss’s comments is that a) I think they’ve inadvertently egged Lee and Pillsbury on in their insistent claims of total “innocence,” their threats, and their general insulting behavior, and b) they violate the values Strauss relies on or takes for granted elsewhere, minimizing the copying simply because it didn’t originate with Lee, despite the fact that she thought nothing of publishing it despite knowing Hill was a scammer before the book went to press.
I have been thinking a lot about the whole Viswanathan incident from a year or two ago. I’m still not convinced that Viswanathan was responsible for the alleged copying in her book (or whether it happened at the book packager) or that she did it intentionally. But regardless of who and how, Viswanathan quickly took responsibility for it and apologized. And she did so in a very, very high profile environment. She didn’t blame anyone else or act the victim, at least not publicly. If plagiarism is the height of unprofessional writerly behavior, then stepping up and truly apologizing is, IMO, what we hope for when such a thing is uncovered. It is a chance to restore some level of trust when a creative violation occurs. It is an opportunity to be forgiven, to move on, to write again with more care and/or respect for others’ intellectual property. Regardless of whether you physically did the copying or whether your research assistant or ghost writer made the switch. There’s a certain honor system I think writers hope they can rely on, at least from those who theoretically face the same risks (i.e. if I steal from you, someone else may steal from me, making everyone a potential victim).
I have no doubt that the charge of plagiarism is terribly humiliating. And I think there really are cases of inadvertent or unconscious plagiarism that would make the sense of humiliation even worse. No matter what, it’s certainly a humiliation and a violation for the author whose work is copied. But in a writing environment, among people who aspire to be professional writers — or at least professional authors — I think we should be able to agree on a baseline level of intellectual honesty. And IMO, minimizing an act of copying in a work held out as professionally authored (no matter the self-published medium — after all, Lee was offering her freelance services), simply because it’s not two big name authors or a big name publisher, doesn’t, IMO, vindicate Lee anymore than her own behavior during this whole hot mess. If anything, I think Strauss’s comments can catalyze a certain backlash, because as a defense they are not only weak, but IMO run counter to the very principles Strauss articulates elsewhere in her advice to writers and her own indictment of Christopher Hill and others like him.
Just wait until you’ve finished your law degree and no one understands why you can’t represent them yet? Or why you have to actually do things to gain admission to your state bar. Or why you need a license to practice law before you can start taking on people’s issues and cases. AND you’re paying off your freaking loans while you’re taking the stupid bar exam and undergoing a background check that’s more invasive than a full body scan.
Robin: I remember the Kaavya Viswanathan incident, but not quite as kindly as you do.
It first came to light when Random House sent a demand letter on behalf of their author Megan McCafferty to Little, Brown, Kaavya’s publisher.
Kaavya was one of Little, Brown’s stars, a 19-year-old Harvard student who’d received a $500,000 advance and a two-book deal. Her first novel, “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life,” was published in April, 2006. A sharp-eyed reader quickly contacted author Megan McCafferty to point out that large portions of the novel appeared to be taken from two of McCafferty’s books.
Somehow the Harvard Crimson student newspaper got wind of the story and approached Kaavya to ask for a quote for the article they were running that weekend. Her first reaction was: “No comment. I have no idea what you are talking about.”
By Monday, however, things changed. Then Little, Brown issued a statement from her saying, “When I was in high school, I read and loved two wonderful novels by Megan McCafferty, ‘Sloppy Firsts’ and ‘Second Helpings,’ which spoke to me in a way few other books did.” She continued, “Recently, I was very surprised and upset to learn that there are similarities between some passages in my novel, ‘How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life,’ and passages in these books.”
I was one of the few people who bought the book between reading the Crimson’s story and Little, Brown’s pulling it off the shelves.
I can tell you–this was no unconscious similiarity issue. There were pages and pages of passages–45 identified by McCafferty’s publisher. In fact, Steve Ross, McCafferty’s publisher, said that, “based on the scope and character of the similarities, it is inconceivable that this was a display of youthful innocence or an unconscious or unintentional act.”
One example from McCafferty’s “Sloppy Firsts”: “Bridget is my age and lives across the street. For the first twelve years of my life, these qualifications were all I needed in a best friend. But that was before Bridget’s braces came off and her boyfriend Burke got on…”
Viswanathan’s “HOMGKGWAGAL”: “Priscilla was my age and lived two blocks away. For the first fifteen years of my life, those were the only qualifications I needed in a best friend…But that was before freshman year, when Priscilla’s glasses came off, and the first in a long string of boyfriends came on.”
Having said all that, I cannot imagine the pressure a 17-year-old en route to college–at Harvard no less–must have been under to perform once she accepted that $500,000 advance. William Morris, her literary agency, had put her in touch with a book packager, Alloy Entertainment, who shared the copyright with her. Some questions arose when it was discovered that Claudia Gabel, who worked at Alloy, was thanked in the acknowledgements of both Kaavya’s book and McCafferty’s book.
A RH spokesman said that Ms. Gabel worked on Kaavya’s project in its “conceptual” stage and did not touch the writing. And Little, Brown, said: “Our understanding is that Kaavya wrote the book herself, so any problems are entirely the result of her writing and not the result of the packager’s involvement in the book.’”
Yes, Kaavya came forward and accepted the blame, but blamed her unconscious each time she gave her explanation.
The real tragedy was a 17-year-old being pushed to perform and to excel to the point where she lost track of her moral compass. I am not condoning what she did. It was wrong, and she suffered the consequences of her actions. I do think it was unfortunate that she was plunked into that position in the first place. News reports claimed that, in her junior year of high school, her parents hired a private counseling service that charged between $10K and $20K to get her into Harvard. Those were some serious helicopter parents.
DAs latest communication from Lanaia, received by Jane (Jane informed Lee on the 12th that all further communications between them should not be considered private, and that future contents might be posted). This seems to be descending into extortion-like phrasing at this point.
Jane, I’d go ahead and admit you’re unbiased. I’m glad Lanaia can see that. ;P
~my apology today and I’ll keep my mouth shut to the newspaper.~
Plus the puppy gets it.
This woman is off the rails. I can’t understand how anyone could sympathize with her at this point.
Jane, maybe you can sue her for threatening to deform your character.
Oy. I have a feeling she is under impression that Victoria absolved her of all her sins. I think she will write her name on a bat and try to bash Jane and James with it.
I feel some compassion that she’s off the rails because it’s very sad and I wish people hadn’t taken advantage of her.
That’s the extent of it. None of that excuses her threats to Jane and others or her insistence that her hands are lily-white throughout this whole mess. Given her reactions so far, how do you think she’s going to react if the newspaper article doesn’t reflect the POV she wants?
Well, now, she’ll sue ‘em, of course.
Funny, but I get that feeling too.
Maya: Thanks so much for all that history on Viswanathan. The last I had heard there were something like 13 isolated similarities, and I wasn’t aware it was as many as 45. Honestly, I don’t blame Viswanathan for her first reaction *because* she came out with an acknowledgment so soon afterward. I am not going to say that I don’t believe she could have copied those passaged deliberately. But I additionally blame others in the system, from Alloy to her own editors (for not seeing what others felt were such glaring similarities, especially given McCafferty’s popularity). IIRC, there was an admission that her book had been very heavily edited and worked on — which, to my mind, is its own sordid problem, sort of like the ghost writer issue. The freaking William Morris Agency hooked her up with the packager, for god’s sake — a girl the age of my own students, most of whom are really just learning how to write like grown-ups. But to me, for all of her mere 19 years, Viswanathan still behaved in a way where she didn’t blame anyone else (no pointing fingers at Alloy, for example), a dead dog, or her parents, even. It may not have been her unconscious, but IMO she really was in a position of being used by others, not scam agents, but those who saw in Viswanathan a chance to cash in on a big market and who were happy to exploit whatever ambitions Viswanathan (or her parents) had. And still she said: “I sincerely apologise to Megan McCafferty and to any who feel they have been misled by these unintentional errors on my part.” Even her publisher threw her to the dogs by insisting she wrote every word in the book. Was it a perfect admission? No. But it was an admission and an apology in a very high stakes situation, and it carried no threats, harassment, or other unsavory behavior, IMO.
Anybody contacted the Greensboro News-Register to tell them the story they’re being offered may not be all it seems?
Sorry, it’s the News-Record, apparently.
December — We haven’t, but I thought of suggesting it to Jane.
I just want to point out that Jane informed Lee days ago that any further communication from her should not be written with any expectation of privacy. Although IMO it’s been a kindness to Lee that Jane hasn’t posted more of what DA has received from her, including what IMO amount to a number of outright threats.
I feel some compassion that she’s off the rails because it’s very sad and I wish people hadn’t taken advantage of her.
Absolutely. Which is why it surprises me that Pillsbury eggs her on, as well. Unless she’s not really off the rails, or is only selectively so. To me, the scamming by Hill is such a small part of this whole mess, but for Lee it seems to be the whole of it. That’s sad, too, but in a different way, IMO.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it was the News-Record:
They’ve been given this song and dance before from Mary.
Just email them the link to this thread. Poor puppy. Now cats can take care of themselves against curses and threats but puppies are so vulnerable. Also let me know if the herpes curse hits because Valtrex works very well.
So do you have to be fingerprinted for the Bar or State License? As a resident working at a hospital with a nursing home facility I had to be fingerprinted. Actually twice since I hadn’t been in Ohio for 5 years, one for Ohio and one to mail back to California. It takes a lot of scrubbing to get the ink off. I just knew I was going to get pulled over on the way home and have to explain-but officer I am innocent -the fingerprints were just a background check.
Same here. This is strictly my personal opinion, with no intent to defame her character, but this off the rails behavior seems to me li