The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Nigerian Separatist Group Sues Wash. Times, U. of Baltimore, Professor for Libel
The lawsuit is brought by the group Indigenous People of Biafra, which has been labeled a terrorist group by the Nigerian government.
Just filed yesterday, Indigenous People of Biafra v. Sheehan; some of the allegations about the group are likely matters of opinion, but some seem to be factual allegations. (Naturally, I can't speak to whether the allegations are indeed false, and knowingly or recklessly false.)
In principle, I would think that a foreign organization—which the Complaint says is a "UK registered Community Interest Company"—would be able to sue for libel in the U.S., just as an American business corporation could. N.Y. Times v. Sullivan did hold that an American government can't sue for defamation liability, even for knowing lies, and the same would likely apply to a foreign government. But I think that a nongovernmental organization, whether or not it's also a would-be separatist government (and it's not clear that it is), wouldn't be covered by this principle.
I expect plaintiff would be treated as a "public figure," and would have to show "actual malice" on the defendants' part, which is to say knowing or reckless falsehood, and not just an honest mistake; but if it can show that, then it might be able to prevail. I think it's very unlikely that this can be shown as to the Washington Times, since the Times' editors are quite unlikely to be knowledgeable enough on the subject, and were likely counting on the expertise of Prof. Ivan Sascha Sheehan, the author of the article. But in principle plaintiff's case might progress against Sheehan (and perhaps against his employer, the University of Baltimore, on the respondeat superior theory that the employer is liable for the torts of its employees committed on the job)—though of course plaintiff would have to prove that Sheehan's statements were factually false, and it's quite possible that they won' be able to do that.
Still, it's an unusual sort of libel case, so I thought I'd note it.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Getting labelled a terrorist group, if false, is damaging. Sue the people doing so.
According to the article above, the "terrorist group" label was applied by the Nigerian government. So how is that relevant to this lawsuit against Prof Sheehan, a Univ of Baltimore employee (and not, so far as we know, an agent of the Nigerian government)?
Sue the Nigerian gov in Nigeria. Because the scumbag lawyer profession is so horrible, we have terrorist gaming it the legal system.
Indigenous People of Biafra v. Sheehan
Insert Dead Kennedys Joke Here.
I was thinking Warren Zevon.
Zevon is the first thing my brain pulls out of a drawer when I hear "Biafra".
Refresh my memory - is that from Roland?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWCK9zGynA
It would make a great name for a cover band.
Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear that they're asserting a respondeat superior theory: rather, they seem to be alleging that the university was conspiring with the professor to commit defamation.
". . . though of course plaintiff would have to prove that Sheehan's statements were factually false, and it's quite possible that they won' be able to do that."
Curious about libel law. . . . since it's logically impossible to prove a negative, how is this group supposed to prove the statements were factually false?
For example:
17. Defamatory falsehood number 6, in context, accuses IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra), of butchering six young Fulani children with machetes, burning a baby alive, and discarding the corpses in mass graves: “In one recent [IPOB] attack on a Fulani community, six young children were butchered with machetes—one, a baby, was burned alive. Their bodies were discarded in mass graves.”
18. In fact, IPOB did not kill young Fulani children, did not burn a baby alive, and did not bury the putative corpses in mass graves.
How are they supposed to prove they didn't do this?
In libel law generally, is the onus on the plaintiff to prove the negative?
IANALibelL, but I think a simple sworn denial of the truth of the allegation is enough to require the defendant to offer evidence of the truth of the allegation. Then it becomes a judge/jury question as to whether the statement was indeed false, and secondarily, if the question was false, whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea when he made the statement.
I believe the plaintiff will have the burden of proving untruth, but only to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. I don't see the great difficulty you seem to imagine in doing this. Discovery ought to uncover the defendants' basis for the claim, and if he ought to have recognized that it was insufficient he ought not have declared as fact what ought to have been opinion.
If the plaintiff is a UK-registered company, I wonder why they didn't sue in the UK. I'm sure the Washington Times is for sale somewhere in the UK and I can confirm from personal observation that its website is accessible here. Moreover, in terms of actual damages, more people in the UK might actually be able to point out Nigeria on a map, so there's that. (Although I'm not holding my breath that very many people have heard of Biafra.)
A UK defamation judgment can be collaterally attacked in the USA because the scope of libel there exceeds what the First Amendment allows.
I didn't get the impression that this plaintiff was after some kind of massive damages award.
Well, the complaint specifically asks
so it seems like there's at least some interest in a payout.
Are we sure this isn't just a phishing scam gone way too far?
Right, and it's not clear that UK courts would be seen (by them, or by American courts, or by both) as having personal jurisdiction over the defendants.