Re:Joann Grimes, Did You Hear the Rumor About Shannyn Moore?

Final Version (posted on July 10, 2009)

July 9, 2009

To: editorsblog@adn.com; pdougherty@adn.com; pdoyle@adn.com
Cc: jgrimes@adn.com <-- *this email got bounced back*

Dear Editors of the Anchorage Daily News:

With all due respect, I am writing in response to an op-ed that your paper recently published. I am an attorney, as well as the former Executive Editor of the First Amendment Law Review, but I am writing to you now only as a concerned reader. I have read your newspaper every day since Governor Palin was selected as Senator McCain’s running mate; I think that it is one of the best in the nation, offering fair, balanced, and breaking news. This op-ed, however, written by guest-opinion writer Joann Grimes, is factually incorrect and defamatory, and to be frank, I was surprised that it was published (available at

Code:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/142241

Foremost, Ms. Grimes misinterprets the First Amendment. She wrote: “Interesting interpretation of the first amendment (sic), don’t you think? I was under the impression that anyone who has the great luck to write for print or posting, or who has a radio or television show has a responsibility to be as factually accurate as possible, most especially when another’s reputation is at stake.” The First Amendment does not say this. While implying that Shannyn Moore, a private citizen and blog owner, misinterpreted the law - and thus is liable for "slander" - Ms. Grimes commits the same offense. Instead, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const., amend I. There is nothing about rumor, reputation, or even responsibility contained within the First Amendment; its purpose is not to chill speech, but encourage it. Protection has also been extended to internet speech. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)(holding that the same protection given to print media, as well as the radio, also applies to information published online). Ms. Grimes references “real journalists,” thereby insulting Ms. Moore’s reputation, yet it is apparent that she did not research or fact-check her own work.

Of greater concern, however, is that Ms. Grimes stated, as fact, that “Ms. Moore has slandered and smeared Sarah Palin in an effort to promote her own petty little interests.” This is false. Slander, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is a defamatory assertion expressed orally. Libel, on the other hand, is a published defamatory statement that identifies an individual by name. If the defamatory statement is made via broadcast media – such as the radio, television, or internet – it is considered libel, rather than slander, because it has the potential to reach a large audience. Thus, if Ms. Moore has committed any civil tort, she has committed libel. To determine if any violations of law exist, it is necessary to consider defamation itself. Defamation is an intentionally false communication that injures another's reputation. Black’s Law Dictionary (St. Paul, West, 2000). In addition to libel and slander, it also includes statements that bring ridicule, scorn, or contempt to an individual in a considerable part of the community. While the exact requirements vary by jurisdiction, it is generally accepted that a statement is defamatory if it is spoken or written, negligently published, false, and causes damages. R. (2nd) Torts (American Law Inst., 1977). To prevail, each element required by state statute must be proven. Many states, including Alaska, also recognize that statements are particularly defamatory, or defamation per se, if it concerns one’s profession, health, chastity, criminality, or moral turpitude. See e.g., Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434-36 (Alaska 2004); City of Fairbanks v. Rice, 20 P.3d 1097 (Alaska 2000); Odom v. Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, 999 P.3d 123 (Alaska 2000). These statements, on their face, are presumed to have caused damage to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, there are different standards for defamation. For a public figure to prevail, he or she must prove the falsity of the statement and "that the statement was made with 'actual malice' -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); see also Doe v. Alaska Superior Court, 721 P.2d 617, 621 (Alaska 1986). Thus, a public figure has a higher burden of proof than a private citizen, who is not required to prove malice, but instead must prove negligence. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). If a private citizen makes a statement that is a “matter of public concern,” he or she is afforded “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983). A matter of public concern includes “anything which might touch on an official’s fitness for office.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 273 (1971); Doe v. Alaska Superior Court, 721 P.2d 617 (Alaska 1986)(holding that statements concerning the government or matters of public interest are protected). This is because “speech concerning public affairs” is the “essence of self-government.” Connick v. Myers at 145. An affirmative defense to defamation exists if the citizen had a reasonable belief that his or her statement was accurate, or if the statement is true. Therefore, even if a citizen makes a statement of public concern that is later proven to be false, he or she cannot be held liable if it was made out of mere negligence or reasonable mistake; however, any defense is lost if an individual intentionally spread lies or exaggerated what is purported to be true.

There is no truth in Ms. Grimes’s assertion that Ms. Moore committed slander. For Governor Palin, a public figure, to prevail, she would have to prove the falsity of the rumors; that Ms. Moore knew they were false or that she published them with reckless disregard for the truth; and that she incurred damages. At this time, it is impossible to prove that Ms. Moore knowingly spread false information; the rumors have not, in fact, been proven false. Moreover, in Barrett v. Rosenthal, the California Supreme Court (which shares the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with Alaska) held that internet speech cannot be libelous if it was also published by other parties. 40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006). Numerous media sources have also written about the rumors, including but not limited to Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, the Village Voice (in Oct. 2008), the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, the Alaska Report, DailyKos (in Oct. 2008), ABC, Talking Points Memo, the Atlantic, Salon, and the Politico. Governor Palin, through her attorney, also submitted a press release to the national media and an editorial to the Wall Street Journal, thereby putting this matter of public concern into the public sphere. Thus, Ms. Moore has not “slandered” Governor Palin, as Ms. Grimes published in your newspaper.

On the other hand, Ms. Grimes’s op-ed is defamatory, which she admits to in print. She wrote: “I heard Shannyn is under investigation for abusing puppies. I heard she was arrested twice in high school – once for stealing Girl Scout cookies and the next time for robbing a Salvation Army kettle . . . Also, I heard she’s been banned from the docks in Dutch Harbor. I don’t want to go into why.” Ms. Grimes uses the Anchorage Daily News, one of Alaska’s largest newspapers, to publish information about a private citizen that she knows to be false, or at the least, with a reckless disregard for the truth. While Ms. Grimes has acted with “actual malice,” Ms. Moore would only need to show that the statements were negligent to prevail in court. Ms. Grimes also wrote that she “heard [Moore’s] making things up about the Palin family purely for greed. She has plans for getting a book deal and continuing her radio show, but really hopes to become a regular on MSNBC. I heard she said she was willing to do anything for that gig – lie, cheat, repeat rumors or make them up, whatever MSNBC wanted or needed. And, I heard that around NBC she’s known interchangeably as ‘the bleached-blonde from Alaska’ and ‘Who?’” Unless Ms. Grimes can demonstrate that these allegations are true, or that she did not recklessly ignore the truth in publishing them, she has committed libel and can be held in violation of the law. To note, she has implied that Ms. Moore is abusive, a criminal, promiscuous, morally corrupt, and unprofessional. To be liable, Ms. Grimes only had to falsely publish one of those statements; instead, she has covered the entire realm of offenses that are considered defamation per se.

Ms. Grimes admits that she has committed defamation and the fact that she prefaced her statements with "I heard" has little bearing on her liability. She wrote: “Of course, these are all just things I’ve heard and following steadfastly in the tradition of Shannyn Moore I haven’t bothered to try and verify any of them.” As a “real journalist,” writing for a major newspaper, it is both disappointing and reckless that Ms. Grimes would publish such clearly exaggerated rumors and then concede that she has not even bothered to verify them. Ms. Moore, on the other hand, has attempted to verify what she published by providing sources on her website that contain similar information. At no time has Ms. Moore stated that her information is fact.

Moreover, even if Ms. Grimes considers her op-ed to be satire or opinion, she would still be held liable. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that an “opinion privilege” does not exist in a matter of libel. 497 U.S. 1 (1990). Specifically, the Court held that “[e]ven if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact.” Id. at 19. The Alaskan Supreme Court affords even greater protection; in Fairbanks Publishing Co. v. Francisco, it stated that punitive damages are available where a defendant published information with the sole reason of harming the plaintiff's reputation. 390 P.2d 784, 797 (Alaska 1964)(authorizing punitive damages upon a showing of ill will, spite, or ridicule). As such, Ms. Grimes, as well as the Anchorage Daily News, is liable for defamation, including punitive damages.

I hope it is understood that I am only writing this letter as a reader of your newspaper, and it is not based on personal politics or animus, but simply a reading of the applicable law. It is not intended to focus on or support Ms. Moore; my intent is to address the legal and factual errors contained within the piece. I do not know if the rumors that Ms. Moore published are true, nor do I care. I do know, however, by her own admission, that Ms. Grimes published false and misleading information. As a matter of professional integrity, the Anchorage Daily News has a responsibility to its readers and Ms. Moore to remedy this situation by either printing a rebuttal to Ms. Grimes's legally deficient accusations or by offering a printed and public apology, acknowledging the poor taste in which Ms. Grimes’s op-ed was written.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter; I look forward to hearing from you. I can be reached at (917) XXX-XXXX.

Very truly yours,

JHop, Esq.

P.S.: While it has no bearing on this letter or its intended purpose, as I searched for Ms. Grimes’s email address – because I thought it was only fair to send her a copy of this letter – I discovered that Ms. Joann Grimes is in fact Mrs. Joann Grimes-Pantages, which I thought was interesting. It is even more interesting that Mrs. Grimes-Pantages is a consistent supporter of Governor Palin and the Republican Party. In fact, she served as a Deputy Treasurer, and was nominated to be an alternate delegate, during the Alaskan Republican Convention. Please see:

1. City-Data: Joann Grimes Pantages (Retired), (Zip code: 99508) $225 to ALASKA REPUBLICAN PARTY on 02/05/08; MS. JOANN PANTAGES (SELF-EMPLOYED/WRITER), (Zip code: 99508) $500 to JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. on 02/26/08

Code:

http://www.city-data.com/elec2/08/elec-ANCHORAGE-AK-08-part1.htm

2. The Huffington Post: Joann Grimes Pantages, Retired, $225 Donation to Alaska Republican Party, Anchorage AK

Code:

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Pantages&fname=Joann+Grimes

3. KTVA: “Prior to the debate a group of Palin supporters went to the Anchorage legislative offices to present 1,600 signatures, in what they say voice Alaskans concern over the investigation. "Its smearing the state, it's being used by outsiders as a bludgeon to beat up Sarah Palin, and it's just gotten way out of hand," said Joann Pantages, a McCain-Palin supporter . . . Organizers say their grassroots efforts were sparked by an investigation which has become a political circus. "What started as a mildly partisan investigation of a very popular governor has turned into an abomination and an embarrassment to the state," said Pantages.

Code:

http://www.ktva.com/topstories/ci_10667618

4. Watchdog: Joann Grimes Pantages from zip code 99508, Retired, $1425 to Alaska Republican Party from February 5, 2008 to June 12, 2008

Code:

http://watchdog.net/contrib/99508/joann_grimes_pantages

5. The Alaska Republican Convention (minutes): Bob Brodie (D36) moved to add 4 additional names for Alternates to the Alternates. Second by Ron King (D4). The names were listed as follows: Huckabee –Charles Elmore (D31); Romney- Peter Goldberg (D32); Paul-Angela Waalkes (D26); McCain-JoAnn Pantages (D24).

Code:

http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/Roots/5f41b0df-28a6-4012-8a78-7e35b25a5094/Documents/State_Convention_Minutes.doc

6. The Alaska Standard: “Dan, I read the young man quit his job. Congratulations, you outed a teenager who isn't school inlined (sic), but is mechanically inclined for getting help from his father - not his girlfriend's parents as you suggested - to get a job. A teenager who has a young son to support. Now, because of pressure brought on by you, a man of questionable motives, he has quit. You must be very, very proud. Joann Pantages”

Code:

http://www.thealaskastandard.com/node/243

It is both curious and disreputable that Mrs. Grimes-Pantages’s clear association with the Republican Party is not mentioned anywhere in her op-ed or website biography; it maligned Ms. Moore’s reputation, while unambiguously supported Governor Palin. It is also unethical not to mention that her husband, Mr. Jeff Pantages, writes for the Anchorage Daily News as well. Based on the sources listed above and below, Mrs. Grimes-Pantages uses her husband’s last name in almost all circumstances – except when writing for your paper. It is possible, of course, that she simply prefers to use her maiden name during professional endeavors; but it is still misleading to your readers. Please see:

1. Anchorage Daily News: John McCain should know: Getting old has its advantages; By JEFF PANTAGES

Code:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/533087.html

2. Anchorage Daily News: Economy will take time to recover, but it's no Depression; By JEFF PANTAGES

Code:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/568606.html

3. Anchorage Daily News: Commonwealth North hosts "The Financial Crisis: How we got here and where are we going?" with Jeff Pantages, chief investment officer, Alaska Permanent Capital Management, 7 a.m., Hilton Chart Room. Joining him are Joe Beedle from Northrim Bank and Joe Everhart from Wells Fargo, who join the discussion by bringing the topic home to Alaska. RSVP online at www.commonwealthnorth.org or call 276-1414, ext. 1.

Code:

http://www.adn.com/money/story/546890.htm

Finally, it can only be considered suspect, disingenuous, and against all journalistic integrity that the Anchorage Daily News has quoted Mrs. Grimes-Pantages in its own article. Ironically, she was quoted while at McCain-Palin headquarters. I request that you please address these concerns immediately. Thank you. Please see:

1. Anchorage Daily News: “Over at the McCain-Palin headquarters on a recent drizzly night, Joann Pantages dialed a Nevada number on a campaign cell phone. A housewife and Democrat-turned-Republican, she is volunteering for the first time. Asking strangers how they are going to vote feels a little awkward, she said. "This is not how I wanted to spend my summer vacation," she said. But it's worth it if it can deliver votes.’”

Code:

http://www.adn.com/politics/v-printer/story/561415.html

*Modified earlier by futurexpat? to code links when moved to Republican Watch