Threats and Libels and What To Do

[ourdetective]

A lawyer just accused me of being biased because I keep citing his client as the "alleged illegal drug lord" and threatened to file libel charges against me and the paper I work for if I continue to write about his client. Well, his client is really on trial for maintaining  a shabu laboratory so, I cannot really say otherwise. This is my  second

Comments

[editer]

You don't allege a person. You allege a thing. Call the defendant the defendant, or the accused. Say "the defendant is accused of running an illegal drug lab". Competent journalists do this every day with no problem.

And unless the charges specifically include such things as conspiracy and racketeering, "drug lord" is going too far. You may want to sensationalize this, but unless your editors want it too (is this a New York Post-style tabloid?), you're best to back off.

[melyndaf]

What editer said. You're asking for trouble using "Alleged illegal drug lord," because it is, indeed, potentially libelous. Besides...even if it was correct, it's redundant anyway. Are there legal drug lords?

[editer]

Are there legal drug lords?

We call them "pharmaceutical company executives".

[chris03]

HA.

[fingerthemiddle]

Even given the advice on the changing of the wording... if is a reporter (not the editor) he/she should keep doing whatever makes their editor happy.

I know of no credible dictionary that says a drug lord is someone that does a, b, and c. To me is a drug lord is a person that sells massive amounts of drugs. If this person was caught with a lot of drugs then it would fit.

As far as "conspiracy and racketeering".

A) If he sold drugs then he definitely conspired to sell drugs.
B) It depends on your definition of racketeering. You can go to dictionary.com and find very open definitions such as "To carry on illegal business activities that involve crimes." obviously this fits the bill.

Given this person allegedly sold drugs then he would almost certainly meet the threshold that you put forth.

[editer]

You're using dictionary.com and your own off-the-cuff blatherings to try to back up your nonsense about legal definitions? Dumbass.

[fingerthemiddle]

haha... the fact remains that the two things you alluded to that were required could very well be established. It's not my fault you framed your argument by using racketeering and conspiracy.

Legal definition:

n. the federal crime of conspiring to organize to commit crimes, particularly as a regular business ("organized crime" or "the Mafia").

*******

If you wanted to offer a stronger retort you should have offered a legal definition that differed from mine. Oh yea, you didn't because mine was spot on.

[ourdetective]

At the risk of sounding touchy, I always explain that the accused is charged with such-and-such and has denied the blah blah blah. If a witness during the hearing claims something, I try to catch the defendant or one of his lawyers (not the one who wrote to me) after the hearing to get their side. But I think drug lord is apt because it's a massive, national-level drug case, which involves conspiracy and racketeering.

[editer]

At the risk of sounding touchy, I always explain that the accused is charged with such-and-such and has denied the blah blah blah. If a witness during the hearing claims something, I try to catch the defendant or one of his lawyers (not the one who wrote to me) after the hearing to get their side.

All of which is fine and good.

But I think drug lord is apt because it's a massive, national-level drug case, which involves conspiracy and racketeering.

Fine, too. But calling him an "illegal drug lord" straight out -- which is what you described in your original post (the word "alleged" doesn't mean anything in that position) -- is crossing the line. OTOH if you're careful in your locution, e.g. "prosecutors today drew a picture of an illegal drug lord with a vast empire", then you're fine.

[fingerthemiddle]

hahahahahaha nice spin.

The fact is it is a national case and while I agree "illegal drug lord" is bad phrasing, it sounds as if this writer has pretty much established that this man is a drug lord.

[jelloink]

It's not the writer's job to establish it, it's the court's. Until proven guilty, the only accurate phrasing the OP can use involves "accused" and "defendant" for the person on trail and "alleged" for the crimes that may or may not have been committed.

As for use of the phrase drug lord, I agree with others that it's coming on a little strong, unless you're using it to paint the picture of what the prosecution is saying, as someone else suggested. It's pretty sensational and definitely weird to use it before conviction anyway.

[fingerthemiddle]

If the writer's editor is ok with the use of ALLEGED drug lord then I wouldn't worry.

While it is true the writer can be sued individually:

A) any paper worth their salt would provide representation

B) any lawyer worth their salt would sue the paper because they have more resources to go after in almost every case

If the writer was not using the word "alleged" then they would be in a compromising area I wouldn't be comfortable with... they are.

I highly doubt they get will be sued and further I doubt if they were sued they'd lose.

I know this and everyone else that has commented knows this, too. We're arguing semantics here and turning this isolated case where we have next to no information it into a federal case needlessly.

I'm bored.

[fingerthemiddle]

to put a final touch on it- keep in mind the orginator of this topic used "alleged illegal drug lord" and that is what I was responding to. No one is suggesting the writer drop "alleged".