On Apr 15, 7:50 am, nadin...@mailinator.com wrote:
> I would not tell my lawyer to lie and say (or infer) the book is not
> about the parent if that was asked in court, and I would fire a lawyer
> who suggested such a thing.
That's the kind of comment that gets my attention.
Nadine, you've got to either fish or cut bait. Are you (1) worried about getting successfully sued, but you still want to inform the world about the details of the problem of child abuse in a novelized format; OR do you (2) want the whole world to know that Joe Schmoe in particular is a child molester regardless of the consequences to you if Joe contends your allegations against him are false?
The whole idea of (1), writing a social-issue roman a clef, changing the names, circumstances etc. in what is then basically a fictionalized crime story "based on a true situation" as they say on the Lifetime Network, is to increase public awareness of a particular social evil in a personalized narrative that makes it livelier and more entertaining than academically reviewing dry crime statistics on a police blotter. There the message, whether we're talking about child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, sexual harassment, or whatever, is that (a) such bad things do indeed happen to real people, and (b) here's the "warning signs" so you can avoid having this happen in your own life or defuse it before it goes too far, (c) here's what can happen afterwards, to victims as well as to perps, depending on how the situation is handled, and (d) here's how the "pros" recommend you handle it if this _does_ happen to you, so you can work towards a better chance of catching the perp/quicker recovery for the victim/whatever. And the goal of all that is to get the reader or TV listener all angry/sad/ready to write to Congress/whatever.. If that's what you mean by "it's in the public interest that such books are written," you've got a lot of company that would agree.
But if what you want to do is basically (2) to "out" Joe Schmoe as a child molester, and be able to do so behind a shield that would protect you against Joe's claim of libel if you fictionalize your story about him in any way and include details of the crime that are not provably true along with details that would identify him as your model for the character, nothing of the sort will help you. Only the truth will be your defense, and if that is what you intend to do, why would you want to change names of the characters, etc., and publish under a pseudonym? And if that is the case why would you want to fictionalize or speculate about any facts, other than reporting what is already available and proven on the public record? You'd be better off, both in terms of legal protection and in terms of accomplishing your "outing" goal, writing a piece of factual reportage rather than a "based on true crime" novel, and citing your sources, e.g. writing that "So-and-so alleged in court on 6-7-89 that Joe Schmoe molested Sally Schmoe" rather than speculating, based only on your inferences and guesswork and/or unprovable anecdotal tales, as to what really happened between Joe and Sally. The former is fact; the latter, even if YOU believe it to be what really happened, is fiction BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A SOURCE.and it is entirely the product of your own imagination and inferences. Yes, I know, novels and other fiction are often better at getting at the "real truth" behind human behavior than dry nonnfiction social science is. But that doesn't prevent such fiction from being libel if it atrributes UNPROVABLE crimes to a living person.
In either event, as many posters have mentioned, you should get competent local legal advice BEFORE you publish anything even potentially libelous, ie. anything based on events in the life of a living person.
Now, getting back to your comment that got my lawyer hackles up. Assuming that your intent was (1) a fictionalized roman a clef and that you just wanted to get the message across about the evils of child abuse, not to point the finger specifically at Joe, WHY would you think your lawyer is in any way "lying" if that's what he argues at trial? It is not "lying" for a defense lawyer to make the plaintiff prove his case, and to suggest to the jury that plaintiff has not carried that burden of proof if there are other reasonable interpretations of what you wrote, i.e. that it is a generalized morality play and not a diatribe against Mr. Schmoe. And if such a general call to arms is your intent and your goal, rather than "outing" a particular perp, then what the lawyer would be arguing on your behalf is TRUE anyway (not that a lawyer's arguments have to be "true" in the same sense that testimony has to be "true", but that's another thread).
Sounds to me like you've got some thinking to do about what you really intend to accomplish. Good luck working it out,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment