KingCast says even if Joanna Marinova is a Limited Purpose Public Figure the Boston Herald and Jessica Van Sack Acted with Actual Malice.

Not only that, the Herald's Attorneys, by and through Elizabeth Ritvo, were well aware of it as noted herein. Here is Nicholson v. Promotors on Listings, 159 F.R.D. 343 (1994), readily distinguished:

With respect to the April 11, 1988 article, the only evidence of actual malice to which Mr. Nicholson points shows that Bongiovanni knew of [**9]  his reputation in the entertainment community. This knowledge, it is argued, should have put Bongiovanni on notice of the falsity of the allegations. However, the most culpable state of mind this evidence could possibly support is negligence, particularly since the bulk of the article is reporting on an investigation conducted by a reputable newspaper (KingCast note: Unlike the Herald).

With respect to the second article, published on January 16, 1989, plaintiff points to evidence that after the first article, he called and wrote the reporter to put him on notice of the inaccuracies and yet the reporter still failed to call him to verify. Further, he points to evidence that defendants' re-reporting of the information in the Lowell Sun was inaccurate. The only alleged inaccuracy in this article is the use of the word "intensified" in the following sentence: "The local probe into the financial affairs of the LOWELL MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM in Lowell, MA has intensified."

Even assuming that the magistrate judge is correct that there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether this term constitutes a falsehood, and even assuming the reporter may have been negligent in failing to call Mr. Nicholson to hear his viewpoint,  [**10]  this literary embellishment is not so grossly irresponsible so as to constitute actual malice.  [*346] Geiger v. Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 719 F.2d 515, 517-518 (1st Cir. 1983).


.....By way of contrast, the Herald and Jessica Van Sack clearly implied that Joanna Marinova had sex with an inmate, and was somehow punished for it even though she never was even charged. Moreover, the inappropriate touching claim again prison activist Darrell Jones was dismissed... and the Defendants knew as much prior to publication. By any measure of Justice, this case goes to the Jury folks. Accord Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, 427 Mass. 129 (1998) citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704-705, 33 L. Ed. 2d 626, 92 S. Ct. 2646 (1972). "We feel compelled, therefore, by the Supreme Court's view of the First Amendment to require that this plaintiff's recovery be predicated, in part, on proof that the defamatory statements were untrue."


I look forward to next week's hearing on this and other matters with a handful of 16gig SD cards for the Canon 60D at the ready. I may even buy a Rode shotgun mic to compliment the Rode SVM I'm currently running, don't want to miss a word.