The resolution of nothing

Today was the day the local court case Webster v. Albero was supposed to be heard, but it was not. In short, the allegations by Salisbury’s police chief against a local blogger were settled in a “non-monetary” fashion instead of having its day in court.

The main issue I wanted to have resolved in this case was just where the line is drawn between news and opinion on the internet. While Albero’s website is dubbed Salisbury News, it’s prominently noted at the site that it’s “opinionated only.” Other contradictions of this sort occur when Albero covers local events as a news reporter would and is even given press privileges by some local organizations and newsmakers. (You can see for yourself, I link to the site under “Delmarva Bloggers”.)

In general, his site has a number of contributors who vary in quality of writing and usefulness of information. And while he’s done some top-notch investigative reporting over the lifespan of his site, Joe is also just as likely to place articles on Salisbury News which don’t pass the Snopes smell test. He also has a regular routine of placing up the area law enforcement blotters and other local news releases as a local newspaper would.

A recurring theme, though, is his dissatisfaction with the mayor of the city of Salisbury, Barrie Parsons Tilghman, and her administration. (Ironically, Albero is not a resident of Salisbury but does own property within the city.) Over time, this has turned to a vendetta against all things Barrie Tilghman and led to both the Webster v. Albero civil suit settled today and an upcoming Tilghman v. Albero suit slated for hearing later this summer. Unrelated to these is another court date Albero faces for a perjury charge, as the resident of Delaware is alleged to have falsely claimed Maryland residency in a real-estate deal.

The problem for me isn’t with Albero; that just adds a local flavor to the case. A precedent would have been helpful in this brave new world of the blogosphere, and I would have preferred an Albero victory because had Webster’s side prevailed it would provide a chilling effect to bloggers who wish to be critical of public figures but aren’t anonymous, either by choice or by being outed in the process of running their website. Of course, I also fall into the group of non-anonymous bloggers as opposed to the still-unknown “Martin Watcher” who does O’Malley Watch, a popular blog aimed at broken promises from the Maryland governor.

It should be known though that Albero isn’t an angel in this case, as he’s made his own threats against those who spoke out against him and his website, including this writer. As a rule I don’t go into personal attacks because this site is much more issue-oriented; however, there’s been some people I’ve been critical of in the past and the threat of larger, more powerful entities squelching the freedom of speech rights of smaller ones through threat of personal or financial ruin isn’t completely out of the question for any of us. Settling the case leaves a void that anyone can fill insofar as what rights bloggers have to freely speak out.

One thing that has to be admired though is the marketing genius and buzz that’s been created for the Salisbury News site, which was prominently featured in the news stories regarding the suit. Albero has also created, by hook or by crook, a cottage industry of sites dedicated to taking him down a notch because of his bombastic style. (Full disclosure: I occasionally crosspost to one such site, called Pro-Maryland Gazette. This post will become an “occasionally” later on today or tomorrow.) On the other hand, there’s also a number of “Joeys” who swear by his site as the real news source in town, not the Daily Times newspaper or two local television stations. (The numbers I’ve found show, though, that Salisbury News only reaches a fraction of the audience either the Daily Times or local television news does – however, that’s not uncommon as only about 6% of Americans regularly read blogs. Much larger percentages watch TV news or read newspapers.)

What I truly wanted was a little guidance in defining our media role. The tagline of this site is “news and views from Maryland’s Eastern Shore” but my proportions of each are vastly different than what Salisbury News puts up. Unfortunately, having this case settled as it was leaves more questions than answers so I guess I’ll keep on doing what I do, attempting to provide insightful commentary on political issues of the day.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

10 thoughts on “The resolution of nothing”

  1. Michael,

    Perhaps you’d like to pay my legal fees for the Tilghman case to assure you, (and all other Bloggers) get what you want out of it?

    I personally think you need to use your head just a bit more when it comes to why I do what I do. One case is closed but the bigger one, that’s the one I want. Wouldn’t YOU and all others agree?

    Mayor Tilghman is going to come begging like a West Virginia Step Child looking for their long lost Daddy’s child support check! Guess what, there will be no agreements, period. I want that case so bad I can taste it.

    Mayor Barrie Tilghman has backed herself right into a corner and she can’t get out. CHECK MATE! You’re welcome to make donations towards that case if you’d like?

  2. Very well said Michael. You stated facts clearly and separated the hear say, giving a strong argument for your belief. I to wish the line was clearly drawn in this arena, so that truth can prevail and the back stabbing can end. I wonder if I could make a job out of this and come out of retirement? I’m sure some democrat will create one for me soon.

  3. Well Joe, no one’s suing me yet, and that’s why I wanted a little more clarity in the Webster case – so I know where the boundaries are. And to back what I said, your comment proves that it’s a vendetta with a capital V against BPT, and perhaps you’ve baited her into it?

    Cuff, I appreciate the kind words. I was trying to write this in a manner that those who aren’t from the area can understand it.

  4. Michael, I know you’re smarter than that. Just because someone sues you, (like the Mayor, for instance) doesn’t mean they’re right. The Mayor has a track record of bullying anyone and everyone that doesn’t agree with her. This administration has proven such in the past, so I truly don’t know why you’d act so curious.

    The Mayor’s case will clearly prove public officials cannot go over that line and she should thank her lucky stars that I’m not counter suing. The Judge knows if I did so it would be meaningless financially, so why waste their time.

    Nevertheless, if you can’t find some sort of peace in my decisions, well, you’ve got too much time on your hands Michael.

    I’ll say this once again. As a person, Chief Webster is a great guy. As a leader, I think he sucks at what he does.

  5. The bigger case for Joe will be with the State. Once that one is lost he can not testify and carries a heavy bag with him for life. Why would a West Virginian step child have to go looking for a long lost daddy? They keep it close in the families, everyone knows that. But then again Joe comes from the Bronx. Hope the mayor holds her case out until the State is done with him. I hear people have been sending in additional information for the States to use. Good Luck with the Fund Raising Joe, if it’s like any other business you’ve had it will succeed. LOL

  6. But Joe, they don’t have to be right, all they have to do is wear down the financial resources of the other side. You’re a sharp businessman, tell me how many companies simply choose to settle otherwise frivilous cases out of court because they can’t be absolutely certain a jury would find for their side despite the evidence.

    If you go to court and win against Barrie, more power to you. That says that a blogger can state certain opinions and is covered by both free speech and free press case law (since you claim to be the first blogger sued, you’d set the precedent.) Had you won the other case, you’d certainly be in the catbird seat in Tilghman v. Albero.

  7. Michael & Cuff-N-Stuff, I’m obviously much smarter than you thought. I had a long reply and then realized I was giving away far too much information about the Mayor and her case. I’m disappointed in you Michael. I’d say the bigger vendetta here is yours against me personally, not mine against the Mayor. That’s cool though. Let me end with this Michael. Do you think the Mayor’s lawsuit against me is a game? Because you certainly talk like it is. I’m not a business Michael and I don’t scare easily. Oh, that’s right, you haven’t been watching over the past 16 months. The Mayor is suing Joe Albero, NOT my business. So yes, I take that personally and my reputation is worth millions, not $9,999.00.

  8. Michael, I agree that you presented your case very well. I don’t know if Joe quite gets the idea that some of us would like to know what the courts are going to do with a case like his. It could have an effect way outside the Salisbury universe. Well honestly it will whatever the outcome. I will go on record: I’m rooting for Joe!

  9. From Wikipedia

    Slander Per Se

    The four (4) categories of slander per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct her business or trade; and (iv) imputing Serious sexual misconduct (especially the chastity of a woman). Once again, all you would have to prove is that someone had published the statement to a third party. No proof of special damages is required.

    Defamation
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Criminal law · Evidence
    In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.[1] “Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy.”[2]

    Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements “tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead” or “expose the natural defects of one who is alive.” [10]

    Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.

    Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)
    Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice). [13]
    Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

    Let us apply these to the case and then you can have an educated, less emotional decision on guilt or not.

    For the full page visit here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#United_States

Comments are closed.