[Foundation-l] Raw data of 2009 Board election ballots

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com>:
> Thomas Dalton:
>
> If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a
> problem. Whoever did the publishing would be liable. That may be why
> they want to edit it before publishing - to remove anything
> potentially libellous, as a TV company would do.
>
>
> It would be impossible for anything on the audio recording to be taken as
> libel, as there were no written words.  Slanderous?  Possibly.

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. Any form of publishing is
sufficient for it to be libel, it doesn't have to be written.

> However, I was particularly careful to choose my words.  I am a believer in
> the legal doctrine that "truth" is the best defense against a prosecution
> for defamation.  The broadcaster in this case would be largely immune to
> prosecution, anyway, as my words were presented as my own, and it would be
> extremely difficult to present legally that my words reflected the opinion
> of the broadcaster.

While you may be confident what you said is true, the publisher might
not be, so would want to be cautious. I'm not an expect on libel law,
but I think, at least in some jurisdictions, a publisher can be held
responsible even for things that clearly aren't their own words. By
choosing the publish them, they are in a sense endorsing them.

> Thomas, weak as your argument may be, it does kind of underscore my point.
> Slanderous speech "could be a problem" -- but how will we ever know, if no
> concrete reason has ever been presented for the deliberate suppression of
> the raw audio file, and refusal to turn it over to any of a number of
> independent audio technicians who could do the job in 24 hours?

An independent technician may not know what parts need to be edited
out. They may not want to openly say anything that could be
interpreted as accusing you of libel, so are keeping quiet (although
they could easily tell you what was going on in private, so my
explanation isn't perfect).

I don't know if this has anything to do with the real reason, I'm just
giving an example of how they could have a legitimate reason.