This is the second part in How to Fling About Legal Insults Like a Lawyer. One of the questions last week wondered whether free speech was simply unfettered. Absolutely not and I don’t mean for this series to imply that, but I do know that over the space of a year and a half, I’ve had more than one person threaten legal action. I always take those threats seriously because they implicate not only me, but also my dear blogging partners. Further, these threats can intimidate others who are less familiar with the law into taking down posts, apologizing for perceived wrongdoing, and so forth.
The First Amendment is not intended to protect every utterance. Instead, what the court, any court, has to do is weigh the balance between the right of a person to be free of something injurious and harmful or, in other words, to be free of defamation, and the right of the press and the public to engage in critical discourse. As one legal scholar has said, hurt feelings are not to be redressed in the court of law: “Although scathing characterizations can be hurtful, the law of defamation does not provide redress whenever feelings and sensibilities are offended.” Ward v. Zelikovsky, 643 A.2d 972 (N.J. 1994) citing Harper, 2 The Law of Torts § 5.1, at 24.
One of the more difficult concepts to grasp is the difference between opinion and fact. In the 1974 case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40 (1974), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects statements of opinions.
We note that to restrict too severely the right to express such opinions, no matter how annoying or disagreeable, would be [sic] dangerous curtailment of a First Amendment right. Individuals should be able to express their views about the prejudices of others without the chilling effect of a possible lawsuit in defamation resulting from their words.
Rybas v. Wapner, 311 Pa.Super. 50, 457 A.2d 108, 110 (1983). In Rybas, the Unhappy Person was a landlord who was accused of being anti-Semitic in a letter from a tenant’s lawyer, the MeanGirl. The Pennsylvania Court found that the statement, while “offensive”, was not defamatory.
The problem of what is opinion and what is fact is one that plagues even the courts. Judge Easterbrook, in the Stevens v. Tillman case I discuss below stated the “courts have wrestled with the question . . . and have come up with buckets full of factors to consider but no useful guidance on what to do when they look in opposite directions, as they always do.” Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 398 (7th Cir. 1988).
Judge Easterbrook muses philosophically in Stevens , arguing that the there can almost be no difference between opinion and fact.
Most efforts to separate "fact" from "opinion" start with the belief that a "fact" is something verifiable, while an opinion is not. The branch of philosophy known as logical positivism is built on the proposition than only what is verifiable is worth debating (more rigorously, that "there are no synthetic a priori statements except this oneâ€Â), but it has fallen on hard times not only because no one can separate the "verifiable" from the"non-verifiable" (was the statement "there are craters on the other side of the moon" an opinion that turned to fact when we gained the ability to put satellites in orbit around the moon?), but also because most philosophers believe that there are useful ways to debate even non-verifiable statements.
Whatever Judge Easterbrook wrote (in the court’s unanimous opinion), the truth is that most courts ostensibly follow the rule that an opinion is a statement that has no verifiable facts or, stated another way, is objectively incapable of proof or disproof. Courts use a multi factor test, and all the factors tend to examine whether a reasonable person (that’s the objective part) would view the statement as verifiable by facts. A statement can move from opinion to defamatory fact if the author implies that there are “facts” to support the opinion. Confused yet?
Courts often use examples to make explain their decision as to whether a statement is a fact or is an opinion and thus it is easier to use examples to explain the paradigmatic differences.
Jennifer McKenzie asked last week whether the statement “That person is racist" was defamatory. This depends on whether the statement is an invective or has factual basis that is implied. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566. For example, in Horowitz v. Baker, 523 N.E.2d 179 (Ill. Ct. App. 1988), the statements about Unhappy Person included "sleazyâ€Â, "cheapâ€Â, "pull a fast oneâ€Â, "secretâ€Â, and "rip-offâ€Â. Alone and without corresponding facts, the statements imply that the Unhappy Person was engaged in bad, unlawful, and unethical acts. The newspaper that printed the statements, however, based those statements on truthful facts and thus the opinion statements were not defamatory.
In Como v. Riley, 731 N.Y.2d 387, 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) the court found that an action could be brought on the basis that an email was sent entitled “Racism” with the statement that the Unhappy Person’ office cubicle contained a statuette of a black man hanging from a white noose. Of course, if the Unhappy Person actually had a statuette of a black man hanging from a noose like object in the cubicle, the email would have not been defamatory because it would have been true.
In Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394 (7th Cir. 1988), the Second Circuit of Appeals, found that statements of bigotry were not actionable without corresponding factual inferences. Id. at __. An elementary principal, the Unhappy Person, sued the president of the local PTA, the MeanGirl, for calling the principal a racist. Some of the statements by the MeanGirl president included the following:
We found in our investigation that our principal must be removed…. Our principal is very insensitive to the needs of our community, which happens to be totally black. She made very racist statements during the boycott. She is a racist. She must go. We cannot have racist people around our children…. She made numbers of very racist statements, so many that I would use all of my time to explain to you some of the statements that were made.
Easterbrook writes that the term racism has been bandied about so frequently that it has become “watered down” and become “common coin in political discourse.” I know of one particular author who blogs quite frequently about individuals being racist but I’ve generally viewed her statements as name-calling and opinion rather than statements of fact, no matter how hurtful or offensive. Let me quote some more from Easterbrook:
Language is subject to levelling forces. When a word acquires a strong meaning it becomes useful in rhetoric. A single word conveys a powerful image. When plantation owners held blacks in chattel slavery, when 100 years later governors declared "segregation now, segregation foreverâ€Â, everyone knew what a "racist" was. The strength of the image invites use. To obtain emotional impact, orators employed the term without the strong justification, shading its meaning just a little. So long as any part of the old meaning lingers, there is a tendency to invoke the word for its impact rather than to convey a precise meaning. We may regret that the language is losing the meaning of a word, especially when there is no ready substitute. But we serve in a court of law rather than of language and cannot insist that speakers cling to older meanings. In daily life "racist" is hurled about so indiscriminately that it is no more than a verbal slap in the face; the target can slap back (as Stevens did). It is not actionable unless it implies the existence of undisclosed, defamatory facts, and Stevens has not relied on any such implication
Is Easterbrook and the Stevens opinion binding on absolutely all actions of defamation? Of course not. It’s merely illustrative and I thought that Easterbrook’s well thought out and philosophical ruminations interesting and helpful. There are fewer and fewer successful cases of defamation, in part because rhetoric is not usually going to be found to be defamatory. A few more examples of non actionable statements:
- a reporter accused of sloppy and irresponsible reporting. Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. 435 N.E.2d 1021 (Mass 1982).
- accusation of a reporter being a “fellow traveler” of “facists” susceptible to wide interpretations. Buckley v. Littell , 539 F.2d 882 (2d Cir. 1976).
- article stating a women’s basketball coach had a tendency to “screw things up” when it came to her team was not defamatory because the statement was not so obviously false and that “‘[s]ports columnists frequently offer intemperate denunciations of coaches’ play calling or strategy.” Washington v. Smith, 80 F.3d 555, 557 (D.C. App. 1996).
On the other side of the coin, you cannot excuse defamatory statements by using the prefatory words, “in my opinion” or “I think” because “it would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of crime simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words ‘I think.’” Cianci v. New Times Publishing Co., 639 F.2d 1200 (2d. Cir. 1980).
Calling someone a mean girl, a hack, or hateful are all opinions with no concrete meaning. What one person defines as mean, another will say is dislikeable but not mean. Calling someone a writer with no discernible skills and can’t plot her way out of a paper bag is also opinion. Writing that Jane Doe is a thief and a liar are closer to the fact side of the diagram. If a person would write Jane Doe is a liar and then show examples that I had taken blog articles and republished them as my own, it is not likely defamatory since the facts are there and can be verified as truth. (I have not done this, of course. I am merely using it as an example).
As I stated at the preface of this article, I am not advocating a system by which bloggers or commenters hurl invectives without conscience. In fact, if you can bear one more Easterbrook quote, he wrote “civilized discourse should be the aspiration of us all.” Stevens, 855 F.3d at 405. But the right to passionate should not be chilled by unhealthy threats of lawsuits as it is not the civil discourse or moderate speech that is subject to condemnation. Id. at 399.
It’s a balance. If there are questions, please post and I’ll do my best to answer them.
Next week: The standards I am referring to above are standards that apply to the criticism of a public figure. By and large, if a blog article is about an author, that author is a public figure. I’ll address the differences next week in part 3 of many parts. Defamation per se v. Defamation per quod and the media defendant.
I’m surprised there’s so little difference between fact and opinion. It seems so cut and dried for practical purposes, but then you take it to court…
Consider me educated, Meangirl Jane.
I need to sit, reread and let this percolate through my brain cells. Maybe two or three times.
Not to mention the fact that some of us aren’t US citizens, so you’re talking about a whole different set of laws here.
I think it’s important to remember that when you are trying for a career in publishing, you have to wear the author-hat in public at all times. The slightest slip-up (even meant well) can lead to an absolute poo-storm of controversy.
I have stuff that I didn’t think twice about posting to my blog a year or so ago, and it’s still following me around today. Oy.
I was just thinking I have not read Monica’s blog in ages.
I really appreciate what you’re doing here. Keep up the good work!
I work for a project out of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society called the Citizen Media Law Project. We’re compiling a database of legal “threats” against citizen journalists and bloggers (a “threat” being a lawsuit, cease-and-desist letter, subpoena, etc.). You mention above that you’ve been threatened with legal action more than once. I’m wondering if you’d be willing to share information/documents relating to those instances with us so that we can add them to our database and publish a short description of them?
The only law course I ever took was “Law of Mass Communications”, a requirement for my broadcast news degree. The more I read legal threats being tossed around in these blogs, the more I wish that was a required course for everyone posting online.
Keep up the good work, you’re providing a public service in these discussions!
I suppose I’m the author who dares write the word racist.
People decide whether something is true or not through their own filters.
A person said they wouldn’t read any gay authors because one Asian author spoke out against race-based treatment.
They were mad about hearing about Asian authors treated in a racial fashion because somehow it made them personally uncomfortable even though they weren’t Asian.
So all Asian authors were off their reading list–apparently forever and they stated this publicly. Not that they’d ever been seeing reading any Asian authors before. In fact, they seemed to pointedly ignore books by Asian authors in the genre they favored.
An Asian author this person attacked had the gall to call this person racist.
The Asian author called this person racist BECAUSE of what the person WROTE about Asian authors. Asian authors in general agreed the written statements were quite racist.
Other people vilified the Asian author in a veritable shitstorm for having the gall to utter the word racist.
Since they weren’t Asian and never got to experience that particular form of racism, most declared it didn’t exist.
The fact that this person might indeed BE racist, (as most other Asian authors readily agreed) was considered unimportant.
The fact that person insulted Asian authors was considered unimportant.
The fact that this person’s actions might have any negative impact on Asian authors was considered unimportant.
The most important thing was that person’s feelings were hurt.
Another important thing is that Asians should never defend themselves or utter the word racist. The fact that one did so was outrageous.
The most important thing of all was not to talk about these things.
Now, are these folks who are busy defending and not considering these important considerations publicly rather biased against Asian authors too? Some night think so. Maybe a more comfortable word could be ethnocentric.
Or maybe their asses are just as racist? But what’s important is the semantics and of course those darn feelings. And what’s most important is that ASIANS don’t talk about it.
While there is an entire class of authors treated in an outright racist fashion–not just by one person, but by an entire community.
But that’s not important, Whether the word racist is used is what matters.
How very white of you.
Please disregard the word “gay.” I first thought that was a better simile as far as bias, but unfortunately gay is not a race and homophobic doesn’t have the explosive connotations of the word Racism. I accidentally failed to delete it. Please correct the comment.
We do know it is black people, and black people only, that some tend to have the ethnocentric problem with.
Interesting post and very informative. I feel edumacated. :)
Not to get all silly, but I do love that kitty picture. awwww!
Speak of the devil!
Well hmmmmm…
Sounds like he would not read GAY AUTHORS not just Asian authors but maybe I missed something there. So maybe they did not call him racist because he was homophobic?
Oh dear, Teddy can’t read well either.
Pig, you do have my condolences and give a shout out for me at your next Supremacist rally too.
Oh Monica I’ll never be gay enough for you.
Damn, Monica,
I was like… wait… “Asian” is a euphemism for gay now? *snicker*
Monica, could you at least point us to the source of your discourse? If you’re going to make accusations of these sorts, you need to link to the actual offence, not just parse it out in a very confusing and accusatory manner.
Jane, I am enjoying the posts - you make learning fun!
Monica, Wow. What a rant.
I am making accusations? Hmmmm.
That’s your filter. I was talking about what happened. Facts
Think everybody would attack me for checking this person and support them wholeheartedly? Think folks would still support them and appear on their blog?
I have NEVER said that people HAVE to read romance by Asians. I say over and over that Asian romance authors should be treated as other romance authors are. I get a lot of flak for this.
Oh, they weren’t talking about Asians. Since it was blacks, it was just dandy.
And of course this person isn’t racist.
As generally the sole and lone defender, it is very important that I make no small mistakes in wording and semantics when talking about something relating to black people.
Bringing up anything about black people makes some angry or uncomfortable and they will attack the smallest error in wording or grammar. I have a deadline, need to get back to work, and am going fast.
I posted this immediately after my post, but apparently some are missing it and jumping on my error (instead of addressing any points raised, of course).
Actually Monica if you had stuck with Gay you could have easily pointed out that Romantic Times and Carol Stacy debacle when she plainly stated that they would not review Gay Romance (but accept their money for advertisements and conference attendance) because “their readership” was homophobic.
There really are some whack jobs in the Romance community.
Monica, why do I get this feeling if you were lesbian it would have EXPLOSIVE CONNOTATIONS. You go on so about how your experience is so much more authentic than others.
Actually, you have no idea what I am.
I have spoken out against bias against gays very readily including RT’s homophobic policies–also against bias against erotica.
But you’re right bias against blacks strikes far closer to home.
Where the HECK is that comment correcting feature? Mine disappeared too. Post redux!
Some classic defamatory accusations are “Meangirl is an alcoholic” or “Meangirl has AIDS” or “Meangirl is an STD-ridden whore” or “Meangirl is a drug addict.” That’s why if you ever watch court TV like I do (where’s the 12-step program for court tv shows, I ask you?), the judge always treats those claims of defamation with a lot of questioning to determine whether the accusation is true. Sure it makes for salacious television, but that’s sort of a side benefit to enforcing the legal rules to which Jane referred.
One of the things that frustrates me the most about reckless claims of defamation and baseless threats of legal action is that besides chilling legal discussion, they also make it difficult for people to have any reasonable clue about where the line is. Most of the discourse that goes on is far from defamatory, but people don’t know that. And also, they are, IMO, not really conditioned to deal with plain old opinionated hostility in a way that doesn’t chill discussion, scare people away, or blow everything up into a long parade of perfectly legal but obnoxious insults that also, in their own way, chill discussion. Defamation is an action intended to protect personal reputation and provide a check on free speech in the spirit of “civility.” But unfortunately, the way the accusation gets bandied around often ends up belittling the goal of defamation protection and of civility, because the accusation is used to stop others from saying something the accuser doesn’t like but is perfectly legal. And in the process, the accuser ends up using the accusation as a big club, taking out as much permissible (and potentially productive) discussion as possible with th e swing.
Word, Robin. Word.
I have to get back to work, but….
Robin.
Dang, I do like you, girl. You have smarts.
But in discussion about race and blacks you always go back to one of two notes.
This one is the be nice note.
Why should I have to be nice? When folks are talking about romance bias against erotica, gays, or Lord Forbid, Asians, they don’t bother to be nice.
They speak their minds. They tell it the way it is. They set the story straight.
YOU speak your mind.
Why do blacks only have to be so careful of other’s comfort in regards to racial discussions?
No, I’m not worried about making sure everybody is chill. I’m telling the truth, speaking it to power.
Just as if I were an erotica author.
If you’re uncomfortable, I’m sorry.
But that’s your problem, not mine.
Bias is bias.
LOL! Your right Monica and guess what? I don’t care!
Just like I do not read or review eBooks based on the authors color, religious preferences, prejudices or politics.
Good for you, Teddy Pig. You know what, that’s ALL I’ve ever asked of folks.
The rancor because of this simple request that you say you naturally comply with so easily–it’s amazing, isn’t it?
Monica, Why do you even have to ask?
Hell, half of the eBooks I have read I can not for the life of me find a picture or a Bio of the author by using Google.
I do not rancor about your request. I dislike the way you assume and attack.
But Robin said that much more better than I ever will.
Blacks stating truth is assuming and attacking?
Is gays doing the same assuming and attacking?
Black romance writers are treated differently based on race.
We are not allowed to use the word racism to define this treatment.
If it were gay males, what would you do, TP? Would you be a good boy and stay silent?
Would you suck up in hope of getting that review or interview because you are a good boy?
Or would you speak up?
I read books that appeal to me, and I couldn’t care less what color the author’s skin is or what his/her sexual preference is. If a book is good, it’s good regardless of who wrote it. There will always be an unhappy person out there, and many will always try to make others just as unhappy. It’s a sad part of life; one that we may never be able to change.
Jane, another great and very informative post. I look forward to the next lesson. I do so enjoy reading this blog. :)
Monica - I don’t know why the thread went where it did, but the point of my article was that you have every right to label people racist even if that is hurtful and offensive to the person on the receiving end. The article is about defamation and whether the term can be used with impunity. For the most part, racial epithets from Skinhead to Racist are probably not defamatory.
You know, this discourse— even though it should really be about the whole “IT’S NOT SLANDER, it’s LIBEL, YOU ASSHOLE!” thing— has made me wonder something:
How come folks don’t pick up a book by Nalini Singh, Marjorie Liu, Gennita Low, Tess Gerritsen, Sunny, and my other yellow sisters and don’t go, “ewww, an Asian author. I can’t possibly relate with the people in this book.”
just throwing it out there.
No Monica, but I first ask why. Then, if I do not like the answer, I will decide to let it go or fight it.
I spent 10 years in the Navy because I asked why then decided they would have to catch me first.
Why do I feel like there are two separate discussions going on here?
Monica, this is why people get irritated with you — this post, and this discussion, is about the difference between free speech and defamation, but you are trying to make it about race, and about some discussion about race that apparrently took place somewhere else at some other time. You try to make everything about race, even when it’s not, and even people who agree with your ultimate beliefs and goals get irritated with your methods.
If you’re Asian, you’re considered part of the romance community.
I’m asking you RESPECTFULLY what you would do if Asian romance authors were treated the same way black romance authors are?
What if their books were ignored by the greater romance community and niched because they were Asian?
Would your main objective be white reader comfort and your traffic? So would you not mention Asians and their issues at all or do it in a very careful, veiled manner?
Would you ignore Asian authors on the whole in order to participate in the greater romance community which ignores or reviles Asians?
Would you make excuses Asian romance authors being treated differently because of their race (say it’s because of marketing, etc.?) or would you speak up even if you knew it would anger whites no matter how you said it?
They don’t want to hear about Asian issues, period.
Or would you remain silent, knowing nothing will change if your outrage is not spoken, but hoping to get a review or interview? You could be the next token accepted Asian author. (There’s never been one since they allowed Asians to be published, but you have hope).
What would you do if Asians called you a Twinkie or whatever the equivalent is, because you spoke out?
Would you be friends with romance folks who avoided Asian authors or minimized their issues?
I’m genuinely curious.
I’ve never been called a Twinkie. Just a banana.
And just to steer back the thread to the topic, “banana” is not slanderous, right, Jane?
so there will be “J’accuse!”
Monica, I actually wasn’t referring to, talking about, or in any way implicating you in my comments, lol. But I like you, too.
To be honest, I skipped over yours and Teddy’s comments because I didn’t want to get sidetracked from the point I had been thinking about since last night when I read Jane’s draft of this post.
But in any case, my comments weren’t actually, a plea to “be nice” — they were a remark on how people use the defamation threat to shut up conversation that offends them. So whether you believe me or not, I’m defending your right to call me or anyone else a racist. But I’m still gonna publicly disagree with you when I think you’re wrong, just like a I do with plenty of white, Asian, and Latina chicks, too.
agh. damn you, lack of edit feature!
I meant there will be no “j’accuse”
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions. It’s is not for any one person to decide who is wrong and who is right since there can often times be more than one right way of thinking. It’s part of what makes us human and different. Words are just words–strings of letters put together to form a meaning. The message we give to others is determined by how we use our words. Some use words to hurt; others use them to educate or entertain. It’s the nature of the beast.
I think in some cases, people need to learn to ignore things and forget the person saying them even exists rather than to react and add fuel to the flames. Threatening lawsuits without proper knowledge of how the legal system works, makes on look idiotic and more like a petulant child than a rational, logically thinking adult. To me, the post is a reminder to stop and think about what is being said and who it’s being said by before retaliating. The words being used are a slave to the wielder and cannot be held accountable for how they are used–they are after all, only words.
Beverly,
This is what was stated in theoriginal post/
This was me and this post was about race too.
Jane has attacked me personally for calling Sybil a racist. I define a racist is anybody who treats people differently BECAUSE of their race. Sybil stated in writing, she treats black romance writers differently because of their race.
Seemed real plain to me.
I put up a post 10/18 that did not call Sybil a racist, but linked to her in a humorous manner. The post was written for my peers, not this group who frequents dearauthor.com.
Yep, I call it like it is. It’s about race and about a year’s old issue ALSO.
And I said it like it feels, not only to me, but to a number of other blacks.
The issues isn’t whether it’s name-calling. If you have the practice of treating people differently because of race, you’re a racist. This is a definition, not a slur.
What do you nonblack people attack us and then feel we have no right to respond?
There has got to be a word for that that doesn’t begin with R
Monica - I don’t see how the above piece is a) about race and b) an attack. The above quoted paragraph was provided as an example of speech exercised by you on more than one occasion. It was an example of speech, particularly in response to a query from a commenter lat week, that I felt was not defamatory.
The above quoted piece is support of your right to use that term, in the manner you did, regardless of the recipient’s response. If you choose to feel attacked by that, it is your prerogative but it was not the intention of my piece.
And I really wasn’t referring to you and Sybil, but rather your blog and your many mentions of perceived racist activities, including those that have gone on here. I don’t know how more plainly that I can state it.
Let me also state that your definition of racist is simply one definition. The variation in meaning is the very reason that leveling the accusation of “racist” on a person is deemed, in many cases, to not be defamatory. Similarly with Bam’s example of “banana”. Being yellow on the outside and white on the inside is a value judgment, subject to many different interpretations and no verifiable facts.
Your interpretation is one that Easterbrook labels an “intermediary” interpretation. It’s obviously the right interpretation for you but it is not a universal meaning.
If I can quote Easterbrook again,
Presumptions and insults that can be very damaging to reputations and have no real basis other than a comment made two years ago that she has repeatedly taken out of context.
I will not hijack this thread more, if someone has questions I will try and address them in the link above. Otherwise really this is nothing more than someone going for negative attention. Not playing that game…
Jane,
And I responded to your comments regarding me personally. If you addressedany other author, even Nora, you might expect they’d respond.
I haven’t responded to the article on the whole, the issue of defamation, which I found enlightening.
I responded to what you addressed me personally. You know and I know our main communications about the usage of the word racist have been referring to Sybil.
On my blog, I’ve singled out probably less than five individuals as racist. As I said, I define racist as a very concrete defined, dictionary word, not only as an insult.
According to me, a racist is a person who treats people in a specified and different manner, usually derogatory, based solely on the person’s race.
I make a point of only referring to people as racist who have put in writing that they treat people differently based solely on that person’s race, nothing else. If a person treated gay people differently based on their sexual preferences, I have no problem referring to that person as a homophobe. It’s a definition.
My point is Racist is not a insult. It is a definition. It is a word with a concrete meaning and usage. It makes racists uncomfortable in their heart, and so be it.
You brought it up as possibly defamatory as the original commenter did. I refuted your point.
My point, as always, totally lost in the emotional reaction–was that the usage of the word racism to defame is not the issue. The issue is the actual racism. Or at least it would be if you folk that dismiss me actually ever suffered from it.
My message is the same as MLK’s. We don’t deserve to be treated differently based on our race. We are no different from you. The fact that sites treat our books differently because of our race is a base insult. There are no excuses that can cover.
And we have the same RIGHT as anybody else to respond.
(though most, very aware and fearful of racists against blacks and the ensuing racist backlash–won’t)
I don’t really give a damn, so vilifying is sorta wasted on me.
Jane - Monica posted about race on her blog and nobody reacted. Because she didn’t get the (negative) attention she seems to hunger for, she posts about race on a popular blog (that’s you, Jane), in a thread about defamation and slander. I presume she’s trying to make her point in a not-so-subtle way and get that oh-so-needed attention.
Monica - I think YOU are the worst racist of us all. How’s that for attention? It appears you think that if a reviewer doesn’t purposefully seek out black authors, the reviewer must be racist. I think that’s one of the more moronic things you have ever said.
The reviewer you mention said she put the book down because YOU were being such a whinging idiot over the whole race issue, because you were being such a witch that it turned her off the book. How is that a racist thing? I see it as a personal statement about you and your tactics. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
How many Asian authors write identifiably Asian characters? Characters who identify explicitly with particular Asian cultures and cultural values? And who fall in love with characters who identify with the same cultural values? Whose ethnicity isn’t simply used as erotic shorthand (e.g. the Native American hero who isn’t really NA in any realistic way, or Ranger from the Stephanie Plum series, whose Cuban heritage is, again, expressed primarily in terms of his physical hotness)? I think if we’re going to pursue this line of inquiry we need to start picking out the differences and similarities across books — and across readers. For example, there are plenty of readers who don’t like the non-human element of paranormals, who can’t relate to the implied bestiality of werewolf heroes or whatever. Are these the same readers who won’t read characters of a different race from themselves? And if not, what’s the rationale for the difference?
Sometimes I think that there are perceptions that arise about certain books or categories of books because people are unfamiliar with them. Like the people who think Romance is all about rapists or sheiks. Because AA Romance HAS been segregated, IMO it’s way, way more vulnerable to the perception that it’s different, and because that difference is marked as racial, the unfamiliarity becomes identified that way. And thus starts the whole debate as to whether white readers are racist. In many cases, I don’t think it’s an issue of racism but one in which AA Romance has been offered to readers as “separate” based on race. I think the segregation can implicate race without it being racist, which is why I tend to argue against the straight racism accusation. And what’s interesting is that I’ve read several books by an author who is AA but whose books are not marketed through an AA imprint. Nor are her characters uniformly identified as AA (some of the protags are, though). In fact, I don’t think most readers know she’s AA, and she’s selling in the mainstream. IMO AA Romance shouldn’t be a separate category or imprint or anything else — books but AA authors and/or including AA characters should be just Romance or Romantic Suspense or whatever. And until that happens, I don’t think we’ll really know whether Romance readers are avoiding or reading those books and whether race plays a role in readers’ decisions in a way that’s not already lead by publication and shelving segregation.
If you were ever treated differently because of your race…it feels rotten. It feels bad.
It deserves a word.
Racism is the word and it is a very simple one.
It;s not about attention or assuming or attacking.
It’s about what’s right and what’s wrong.
Black romance authors are treated differently because of their race.
The fact that YOU can’t discuss THAT is telling…and it’s awful.
You the ones who are attacking and doing everything but addressing the big issue, what would be the ONLY issue IF it affected you, even in the slightest.
I remember how the erotica authors and the e-book authors have gone around, spoke up, defied, banded together, and they aren’t treated as consistently awful as black romance authors.
Are you awful?
All I’ve ever asked that reviewers treat black authors the same way as they treat other romance authors. We write romance. We deserve to be read by romance readers. How is that hard? If you said you avoided Asian romance authors because they’re Asian, yes, I would consider you racist as hell.
Monica - sometimes, I think we talk at cross purposes. I didn’t say you were defaming anyone. In fact, I was saying the exact opposite. That your statements were not defamatory. You might say that racism/racist is not an insult, but a definition, but the majority of courts would disagree with you. To many jurists, the identification of someone based on bigotry is only an invective.
I’m also not saying you shouldn’t respond, but I felt that your response has been far afield from the topic at hand which is what is the difference between fact and opinion. You deem racism to be a statement of fact whereas many legal scholars would disagree. The mere existence of a disagreement in the idea tends to lead to the conclusion that it is an opinion.
Again, just to be clear, I never said that you were defaming anyone.
No, Monica. We’re trying to talk about the post’s topic. You’re the one who is not addressing the big issue.
You seem to forget that most of us commenting here are women. If i remember my civics class, isn’t the female gender considered a “minority” as well? I think we ALL have experience with dealing with prejudice and being kept from realizing our full potentional because of someone else’s belief system.
Your inability to see your own racism is keeping your eyes shut to anything anyone else says.
The big issue of this post is defamation and slander/libel. Not racism. You should at least try to stay on topic and stop hijacking this post.
Beside, I was always taught, “Never argue with a fool. The audience may not be able to tell you apart.”
Sigh.
How is responding to what YOU wrote far afield from the topic?
According to racists, anybody black speaking about race at all, unless so gingerly to be devoid of meaning, is A BAD N*GGER. This is historical. This is what happens about any race topic that I participate in–or anybody black who isn’t willing to do a step’n'fetchit dance for white comfort and completely parse the issue.
You think my sisters who agree with me aren’t here? They aren’t saying shit because it’s like addressing the lynch mob or the crowd at Little Rock. There is no point.
In.
Talking.
To.
Ethnocentrists.
Biased People.
Prejudiced People.
Or people willing to treat us differently because of our race.
Call it whatever you like.
We will still think of you as RACISTS!
I—
No, there is too much.
Um. Here’s a cool song.
Gwen, you said nobody reacted to my blog post about black authors submitting as Not Black? What do you base that on? I got very good reactions from the readers I was directed to–my peers.
I rarely post to ethnocentric, biased against blacks or people who exclude blacks on my blog, and don’t expect or even appreciate your traffic.
I do appreciate traffic from people of all different races, sexual orientations, etc., (and I do get it–I was referring ONLY to the ethnocentric)–most of my posts about race in publishing are directed to those who have to deal with it.
Monica - It is interesting to me that you glossed over the fact that your audience her is, by and large, women and that we all experience the prejudice you are railing against. But that doesn’t appear to count in your reckoning.
With regard to your word usage: You’re like the kid in the grocery store who can’t get his mom’s attention until he starts using cuss words. Why would you want to take this conversation down such an ugly path? How does it uplift your argument? How does it benefit anyone reading your comments? How do you plan to change minds by throwing around such polemic words?
All you are managing to do is make yourself look increasingly extreme. It is my experience that that kind of behaviour will do nothing to illustrate a point, or a plight. It’s my experience that all it will do is alienate fence-sitters.
One of the things that frustrates me as a reader (and I realize we’ve strayed from the post topic, but I need to make this one last comment) is that within mainstream Romance, race is treated so lightly as to be practically non-existent much of the time or twisted in such as way as to be unrecognizable as anything realistic. In some cases it’s an erotic aid (e.g. the sexy sheik or “savage” lover) or a character accessory (an accent, for example). I’m reading an AA Romance right now where the issue of race is very much in play, as the heroine is AA and the hero white. It’s there and it’s discussed and it’s negotiated. And it sucks that a book like that is segregated from the mainstream Romance market. I wish more Romance was able to really incorporate race as a real thing, in all of its challenges and opportunities, in the strength of different cultures and traditions. Besides the fact that AA Romance should be incorporated into the mainstream because it’s Romance, there is also, IMO, the idea that Romance as a whole could benefit so much from allowing characters to be strongly identified as non-white regardless of the race of the author, to have the genre embrace race as more than an erotic aid or an accessory to the characterization.
Gwen,
There are no such thing as fence sitters. People have made their minds up.
Blacks appreciate some Southerners, the upfront racists. I have heard it many times.
Why? Because they’re honest. They will come out and say what they mean. You know where you stand with them. There’s a iota of respect in that. We can keep our distance and get along.
I truly wish you could be honest. We know what and who you are. We see you. You can maybe fool your peers, but you can’t fool us.
You’re only preaching to the choir.
I’m standing in the mob.
Bam - Thanks for the song! This red-headed step-child appreciates it!
See, now, Monica, you are creeping into defamatory territory. Accusing someone of dishonesty is often considered to be defamation per se. Calling someone a liar, dishonest, impugns their reputation and can make the writer liable for defamation damages without even proof of injury.
*scary music plays in the background*
Gwen’s blog makes a practice of excluding black romance authors except the rare token, a practice established over years.
Wishing she was honest about this clear practice is calling her a liar?
I don’t think so.
There is a simple short word for the practice of excluding authors based on race. What would you call it if it were Asian authors that were excluded?
Mob Rules don’t stand in court of law, just on blogs and message boards.
I haven’t seen any comments made by Gwen are untruthful. If you continue in this vein, you simply provide more fodder for any case she may wish to bring against you for defamation. But go ahead, dig your own hole.
At this point, you are simply a caricature of the arguments you wish to forward. It’s pretty sad because the subjects for which you stand are important but I doubt anyone can see the points for the hyperbolic rhetoric.
Jane, I’m the only one speaking up because it is clear this is extremely hostile territory toward blacks.
It is also very clear where your sympathies lie.
Would you be defending this person?
Firstly, there are plenty of fence-sitters on the issue of racism. People who