Althouse: "The fact that you don't like that you got a bad grade doesn't give you the right to turn around and try to hurt somebody with false statements of fact."

May 23, 2014

"The fact that you don't like that you got a bad grade doesn't give you the right to turn around and try to hurt somebody with false statements of fact."

"The fact that you are sitting behind a keyboard even anonymously doesn't give you the right to go out in an effort to systematically destroy somebody's career... Especially a well-respected professor like this and it shouldn't be permitted. That's not protected speech."

Professor sues former student.

29 comments:

Eric the Fruit Bat said...: "Especially a well-respected professor . . ."

I'm guessing that was thrown in there pretty much for the same reason Shakespeare wrote about kings.; 5/23/14, 8:41 AM
Quaestor said...: Professor of communications theory seeks to ban communications theory student from communicating. Perhaps your post needs another tag. I suggest "IRONY" in caps.

I've always considered communications to be one of those academic fields that do not bear close scrutiny, that generate more heat than light, as it were.

Back in the day when a fellow student said she majoring in communications I surmised two things about that person: Firstly, the conversation would rapidly peter out into banalities, and secondly, that there was likely to be a considerable trust fund in the background.

Communications theory, hmmph... I wonder if Sally Vogl-Bauer knows anything about the only communications theory that carries any real power these days, source routing. Somehow I doubt it.; 5/23/14, 8:43 AM
Michael K said...: This is a growing issue in all academic settings. About ten years ago, I gave a student a warning at midterm that he was not fulfilling his obligation to his studies. That evaluation did not go on his permanent record, which can affect the prospects for a good residency. It was a shot across his bow. He shaped up but, in the year-end faculty evaluations, he wrote that I should never be allowed to teach again. They are anonymous but, for the past 14 years, I have always gotten high praise from students so it was obvious who wrote that one.

I warned the faculty that he was a potential problem in the third year and should be watched. In a different setting, that evaluation could be harmful to the professor.

It is now impossible for hospital credentials committees to get reference letters on new doctors that say anything. Some even refer to "pending litigation."; 5/23/14, 8:49 AM
Wince said...: Not sure I saw even one assertion of fact mentioned in that story:

"I have a learning disability and Sally took every opportunity she could do degrade, demean, patronize and verbally attack me," the unidentified voice said in the video.

Is the false statement of fact the assertion that the professor literally took "every opportunity"? The rest of the statement, I'd have to say, is opinion.

I give Channel 3000 a "D" for not asking the professor's lawyer the obvious question.; 5/23/14, 9:25 AM
David said...: One grader systematically destroys a career?

Pretty light foundation for the career it seems.; 5/23/14, 9:30 AM
Levi Starks said...: It seems unlikely that someone who was dismissed for academic reasons, and has since made it his life's work to destroy this professor would have any assets to be won in a civil lawsuit. I'd say it's likely the person will defend themselves, and in so-doing will continue to drag the professor through the mud.
At this point the former student has nothing to lose, and the professor has little to gain.; 5/23/14, 9:32 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'd say the student learned quite a lot about Communications.

And now everyone knows who the Professor is too.

Win-win.

(I could do without that 'well-respected professor' bit that the lawyer throws out there, but he's paid to do that); 5/23/14, 9:40 AM
etbass said...: What is a "false statement of fact?"; 5/23/14, 9:46 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "What is a "false statement of fact?""

Would "false assertion of fact" be more comprehensible? If so, why?; 5/23/14, 10:22 AM
MadisonMan said...: I think "false statement" or "false assertion" is a better phrasing. The lawyer is probably being paid by the word though, hence the padding.; 5/23/14, 10:36 AM
Mary Beth said...: How can a C in one class cause someone to fail out of school?

Dictionary.com says "fact" is "
something that actually exists; reality; truth" and "Law. . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence." The second definition makes sense here but I think most non-lawyers think that fact = truth and it doesn't make sense to have a false truth. It would have been better to just say "false statements".

I think these must be his videos.; 5/23/14, 11:08 AM
Bob R said...: What are the legal issues here? What has to be proved in a defamation suit?; 5/23/14, 11:20 AM
Bob R said...: Thanks for the link Mary Beth. @EDH, I didn't listen long, but there are plenty of assertions of fact in the first minute. Since they were quotes from private conversations, they will be hard to prove false. Maybe there are more later on.

@Mary Beth - Many grad programs have a 3.0 minimum GPA. A C is a failing grade, usually only given in egregiously bad cases.; 5/23/14, 11:52 AM
traditionalguy said...: False Facts are the power of slander. The create a false first impression.; 5/23/14, 11:54 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Streisand Effect!

So now the third rate "communications" professor from a 4th rate community college will be famous.; 5/23/14, 11:54 AM
Megaera said...: Unless the quondam student is some kind of trustafarian the lawsuit will only prove the truth of the axiom, "Sue a beggar, recover a louse." True, the process is, as they say, the punishment, but that in fact goes for both sides in litigation, as I suspect the professor is discovering.; 5/23/14, 11:56 AM
Fernandinande said...: "I have a learning disability..."

I am stupid too, but not stupid enough to blame it on other people.; 5/23/14, 12:00 PM
Richard Dolan said...: "It is scheduled for a motion hearing in Walworth County in June and a jury trial in September."

Impressive how quickly the wheels of justice spin in the back-country. Is Walworth County the rocket-docket of Wisconsin?; 5/23/14, 12:04 PM
Andy Freeman said...: I wonder what the good professor thought about Brendan Eich.

We live in a world where it's acceptable to hound many people over almost anything. It's unclear why professors would be exempt.; 5/23/14, 12:19 PM
Ann Althouse said...: The lawyer emphasized fact to distinguish it from mere opinion. If a student says x is a terrible teacher, there's no tort. There have to be some statements of fact that are wrong.; 5/23/14, 2:59 PM
Crimso said...: "We live in a world where it's acceptable to hound many people over almost anything. It's unclear why professors would be exempt."

For the simple fact that a professor has a professional reputation, and that is a thing that has value. If you falsely accuse a professor of something, thereby calling into question his/her integrity, you have damaged them. Unless you can show the professor is a public figure, then you really can't get away with saying anything you want to about them. My understanding is that the bar is set higher for public figures.; 5/23/14, 4:00 PM
James Pawlak said...: Are you writing for the "Professors Union"?
As a law professor you should consider that the plaintiff is, in university & professional circles, a "public figure" and has only limited "right to sue/damages".
Was that professor involved in any criminal/civil fraud by her presentations in class OR likewise in violation of UW policies and rules?; 5/23/14, 5:09 PM
Quaestor said...: "What is a "false statement of fact?" Would "false assertion of fact" be more comprehensible? If so, why?

Agreed, a clumsy bit of writing that.

Facts are facts. Opinions are not facts, except coincidentally. Lies are not facts, except in the rare case where the truth functions as a lie. More on that later.

"A false statement of fact" implies a contradiction. "A false assertion of fact" is the capsule definition of a falsehood, which may be a lie (i.e. a conscious effort to deceive) or merely an incorrect statement, as in a reply to a teacher's question. People who fail quizes aren't necessarily lairs, are they? Ergo Althouse's paraphrase is both more intelligible and reflects much better on the writer than "a false statement of fact."

There could be situations where "a false statement of fact" could be accurate and not contradictory. More on that later.; 5/23/14, 5:57 PM
Unknown said...: This is from an April 4, 2014, Buzzfeed article by Jake Rossen.
[Excerpt begins]

David McKee, M.D., a Duluth, Minn., neurologist, was unaware of the Streisand phenomenon at the time he decided to sue Dennis Laurion. Laurion’s father, Kenneth, had suffered a stroke in April 2010; McKee was called in to assess Kenneth’s condition.

According to the Laurions, McKee was oblivious to Kenneth’s modesty. “His son was right there,” McKee counters. “If he was concerned about the gown, he didn’t get out of his chair to tie it.”

Dennis Laurion consulted with his family to see if his impression of the arrogant doctor was real or imagined. He fired off a dozen or more letters to a variety of medical institutions, including the hospital’s ombudsman, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, Medicare, and the American Medical Association.

McKee sued Laurion for defamation. A local Duluth newspaper picked up on the story, favoring Laurion’s interpretation of events.

In April 2011, the judge granted Laurion’s motion for summary judgment, ruling his comments were protected free speech. A user on Reddit.com posted the newspaper story. Almost overnight, dozens of “reviews” popped up on RateMDs.com and other sites with outlandish commentary on McKee, who was referred to as “the dickface doctor of Duluth.”

McKee found no easy way to exit the situation. “You get drawn in,” he says, suggesting his lawyer nudged him into further action. “It’s throwing good money after bad. … I wanted out almost as soon as I got in, and it was always, ‘Well, just one more step.’” McKee appealed, and the summary judgment was overturned. The case, and the measurable impact of being labeled a “real tool,” was now headed for the Minnesota Supreme Court.

McKee was rated for several years as a top provider in Duluth Superior Magazine, but“From now until the end of time, I’ll be the jerk neurologist who was rude to a World War II veteran,” the physician says. “I’m stuck with it forever.”
[Excerpt ends]; 5/31/14, 12:37 AM
Unknown said...: This is from an April 4, 2014, Buzzfeed article by Jake Rossen.
[Excerpt begins]

David McKee, M.D., a Duluth, Minn., neurologist, was unaware of the Streisand phenomenon at the time he decided to sue Dennis Laurion. Laurion’s father, Kenneth, had suffered a stroke in April 2010; McKee was called in to assess Kenneth’s condition.

According to the Laurions, McKee was oblivious to Kenneth’s modesty. “His son was right there,” McKee counters. “If he was concerned about the gown, he didn’t get out of his chair to tie it.”

Dennis Laurion consulted with his family to see if his impression of the arrogant doctor was real or imagined. He fired off a dozen or more letters to a variety of medical institutions, including the hospital’s ombudsman, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, Medicare, and the American Medical Association.

McKee sued Laurion for defamation. A local Duluth newspaper picked up on the story, favoring Laurion’s interpretation of events.

In April 2011, the judge granted Laurion’s motion for summary judgment, ruling his comments were protected free speech. A user on Reddit.com posted the newspaper story. Almost overnight, dozens of “reviews” popped up on RateMDs.com and other sites with outlandish commentary on McKee, who was referred to as “the dickface doctor of Duluth.”

McKee found no easy way to exit the situation. “You get drawn in,” he says, suggesting his lawyer nudged him into further action. “It’s throwing good money after bad. … I wanted out almost as soon as I got in, and it was always, ‘Well, just one more step.’” McKee appealed, and the summary judgment was overturned. The case, and the measurable impact of being labeled a “real tool,” was now headed for the Minnesota Supreme Court.

McKee was rated for several years as a top provider in Duluth Superior Magazine, but“From now until the end of time, I’ll be the jerk neurologist who was rude to a World War II veteran,” the physician says. “I’m stuck with it forever.”
[Excerpt ends]; 5/31/14, 12:37 AM
Unknown said...: As one of the “trolls” detailed in the BuzzFeed article about David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion, I have no issue with the accuracy of the text - at least as it pertains to me during the case David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion - but the tone of the title fails to distinguish sincere complaints about bedside manner from attacks on mental stability, attacks on medical prowess, fake websites, allegations of dangerous injections, and use of multiple identities. The author said “McKee and Laurion agree on substance…”

While being sued for defamation, I have been called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, and a zealot family member. I’ve been said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies. That’s not correct. In reality, I posted ratings at three consumer rating sites, deleted them, and never rewrote them again.

No: The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The financial impact of being sued three years to date has been burdensome, a game of financial attrition that I haven’t wanted to play. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income - the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.

After receipt of a threat letter, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others include newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.; 6/9/14, 12:26 AM
Unknown said...: As one of the “trolls” detailed in the BuzzFeed article about David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion, I have no issue with the accuracy of the text - at least as it pertains to me during the case David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion - but the tone of the title fails to distinguish sincere complaints about bedside manner from attacks on mental stability, attacks on medical prowess, fake websites, allegations of dangerous injections, and use of multiple identities. The author said “McKee and Laurion agree on substance…”

While being sued for defamation, I have been called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, and a zealot family member. I’ve been said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies. That’s not correct. In reality, I posted ratings at three consumer rating sites, deleted them, and never rewrote them again.

No: The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The financial impact of being sued three years to date has been burdensome, a game of financial attrition that I haven’t wanted to play. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income - the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.

After receipt of a threat letter, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others include newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.; 6/9/14, 12:27 AM
Unknown said...: To follow the court progress or for information about the plaintiff and defendant - Sally Vogl-Bauer V. Anthony Llewellyn, not David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion -

1. Visit http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl .
2. Click "I agree" .
3. You'll be taken to http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl;jsessionid=640964EA587D052C62E1CAF493A883FA.render6 .
4. Name = Llewellyn .
5. County = Walworth .
6. Case Number = 2013CV001140 .; 7/9/14, 1:07 AM
Unknown said...: A Texas school teacher is suing two students. I guess nobody checks with Dr. David McKee before suing for defamation.

"Texas teacher sues two students for defamation"
Posted By Kristen Butler, UPI, May 13, 2013

May 13 (UPI) -- High school English teacher Elizabeth Ethredge has filed suit against two students claiming she was suspended and may be fired because they told the principal that she had asked her class to stalk a suspected thief on Facebook. Ethredge claims she was giving an "oral storytelling" lesson in November 2012 when she told her class an anecdote about her son having personal property stolen at a high school in another district, reports Courthouse News Service.

The complaint states that Ethredge "mentioned to her students that they might be able to help recover her son's property." She invited any student with a Facebook account to help by messaging the suspected thief to try and purchase the stolen item from him.

Ethredge claims the two students only brought it up months later, in March of this year, when she sent them to the principal's office for disruptive behavior and a dress code violation.

"Defendants wrote statements about the oral storytelling exercise that were clearly retaliatory in nature, designed to take the focus off of their inappropriate behavior and to instead focus the principal's attention on plaintiff," the complaint states.

As further evidence of the students' alleged "deliberate and malicious intent to injure plaintiff's reputation," the complaint shows that one student posted a message to Facebook during school hours that said, "Hey Ethredge, "I threw stones at your house" what you got for me big bada**? Case closed!"

The second student named in the suit commented on the post, saying "Hahahahah [expletive] ain't got [expletive]!"

Days after the cited Facebook posts, the Board of Trustees of the Waller Independent School District proposed termination of Ethredge's employment.

Ethredge seeks punitive damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ]]

Source: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/13/Texas-teacher-sues-two-students-for-defamation/3031368455783/; 7/26/14, 3:55 AM