Ex-Gay Watch

For our fellow bloggers out there, a brief primer on libel and blogging.

The Libel Defense Resource Center has an FAQ page. Here’s an excerpt:

What is Libel?

Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to oral statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.

In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be “of and concerning” the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law and other topics at the UCLA Law School, notes:

If it is libelous to say “[X] beats his wife,” why wouldn’t it be libelous to say “[X] is a traitor”? I’m not asking out of any intent to litigate, but rather as a sudden curiosity, especially at a moment when [a certain person] is walking around saying things like: “The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.” Since treason is a far more serious crime, why is it far easier to accuse people of it?

A great question, and here’s the answer: Libel law punishes false and defamatory statements that are likely to be perceived as statements of fact. “X beats his wife” is usually likely to be perceived as a statement of fact (though in some contexts, for instance in a comedy routine, or something that’s clearly a hypothetical, it might not be). “X is a traitor” may be perceived as a statement of fact in some situations, e.g., “During World War II, X was a traitor” or even “During his stay in Baghdad, journalist X committed treason.” Both of these statements tend to suggest that the speaker knows some facts about X that the speaker is capturing using the term “treason.” The statement is defamatory, and if it’s false (and the other requirements of libel law are met), then it’s libelous.

But sometimes the word “traitor” doesn’t carry with it a factual allegation — rather, it expresses a value judgment. “The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason,” or “liberals are traitors,” even when applied to a particular person, doesn’t suggest that the person in fact supports treason, or has committed treason. Rather, it suggests that, given the facts that the speaker and the listeners both know about the person — the person is a liberal, the person has written this-and-such, and so on — the person is morally tantamount to a traitor, or would support treason if he were only consistent. “Is to be for treason” or “are traitors” in this context are statements of pure opinion, pure evaluative judgment. They aren’t factual allegations…

Statutes in each state regulate the practice of law. In California, those include:

California Business and Professions Code

6125. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.

6126. (a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment…

Apparently, in some states, representing oneself as “Legal Department” also constitutes representing oneself as entitled to practice law, and must be accompanied by the name of the person who is an active member of the State Bar.

Finally, John Hiler, co-founder of a Manhattan software consulting firm which specializes in building easy-to-update websites, offered a succinct code of ethics in April, 2002:

A Living, Breathing Code of Ethics for Bloggers Everwhere…

by John Hiler

1. Amateur Journalists are inherently biased. What’s crucial is not pure objectivity, but full disclosure. It is the responsibility of an Amateur Journalist to fully disclose his or her agenda and background somewhere on their site. If a particular aspect of their background is especially relevant to a particular subject, that bias should be highlighted in any article on that subject.

2. Caveats are critical online. Accuracy is still important, but sometimes it’s ok to print information that you haven’t confirmed with multiple sources. Just make sure that you label it as such. Never ever publish information that you know not to be true. And if there’s any doubt as to the accuracy of the information, caveat it clearly so that it’s clear.

3. Blogging doesn’t magically make you immune from Libel and Slander. If your article isn’t clearly marked as opinion, you should give the subject of your piece a chance to respond in print. This means dropping them an email or picking up the phone.

Disclaimer: We at XGW are neither legal experts nor offering any advice. We found these items interesting and thought our readers might also.

The first threat occurred here.

The second threat occurred here in response to an earlier posting.

XGW discusses the legalities of blogging and libel here.

Readers have noticed activity slowing to a trickle.

The reason is that XGW is moving to Washington. We’ll be moved in, and ready to blog regularly, on Jan. 2.

Until then, I hope ex-gays behave themselves. And Steve and I wish everyone happy holidays.

On Dec. 9, Ex-Gay Watch observed that Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas had complained publicly about being quoted out-of-context by Focus on the Family.

The next day, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas offered a near-apology to Focus on the Family.

Thomas associated my observation with efforts by “the Adversary in the spiritual realm” (Satan). Thomas seeks to avoid any “appearance of division” between Exodus and Focus on the Family.

Thomas means religious division. However, what distinguishes Focus on the Family from traditional, evangelical, and mainstream Christian organizations, including gay-tolerant ones, is its obsessive antigay politics, not its spirituality.

Note that Thomas is not afraid of an appearance of division between Exodus and less intolerant Christian organizations; he criticizes them frequently. Thomas is afraid that the public might perceive a lack of conformity with Focus on the Family.

But why is Exodus afraid to hold Focus on the Family accountable for its misstatements of fact on AIDS and its overgeneralizations (stereotypes) about gay behavior?

Does Exodus leadership share the Focus ideology? Perhaps. But finances play a role, as well, in the symbiosis that Exodus and Focus have formed.

For example: Exodus’ monthly newsletters do not carry advertising. But they make an exception for Focus on the Family. Page three of the August 2003 issue features a half-page ad for Love Won Out — a pro-ex-gay fund-raising and publicity venture operated by Focus on the Family. Fully one-quarter of that ad is an effusive statement of gratitude to Focus chairman James Dobson, who is already considered by conservative critics to be a bit of an egotist. Does Exodus provide this advertising to Focus for free — in effect, making it a gift of financing and publicity from impoverished Exodus chapters to the wealthy Focus — or is the advertising contingent upon ad fees or, perhaps, Focus providing a measurable portion of Exodus’ meager $600,000 annual budget?

Exodus International spokesman Randy Thomas accuses homosexuals of exploiting children.

Specifically, he says Rosie O’Donnell is exploiting children by helping the bullied gay youths at New York City’s predominantly (but not exclusively) gay Harvey Milk High School. Press reports like this one have not explained the purpose of the room, so Thomas assumes the worst. He also asserts that the school, which hosts a small fraction of the city’s gay-youth population, is “segregated.”

In the case of the Lafayette, La., child who was reprimanded by his school because his mother is lesbian, Thomas criticizes the reprimand but then says the public must “try to preserve (children’s) innocence as much as possible.” Does this mean that the boy and his mother should still be discouraged from telling his peers about his family — in other words, that the young boy should be condemned by Exodus to live in the closet along with his parents? Thomas avoids addressing this obvious question.

Who is really exploiting children to score a shallow political point?

As you can see, I’m gradually putting back the past design features that worked well — wide fluid columns, black sans serif type. More to come.

Eric at Classical Values expands on our comments about Rufus Wainwright.

Eric offers a hilarious definition of “emo-sexual.”

The depression, lack of self-esteem, and binges of drinking and hustling are things that Eric’s emos may have in common with unhappy ex-gays. But those emos’ hatred of conformity and phoniness make them poor candidates for ex-gay recruitment.

The Human Rights Campaign is launching anti-exgay ads in the Washington, D.C., subway system, according to 365gay.com.

The action is in response to ads in October by PFOX, an organization of antigay parents.

WorldNetDaily misquotes HRC as saying exgay conversion is “impossible.”

For more information:

Human Rights Campaign announcement
Anti-exgay ads

Photo by HRC / Fredo Alverez

Yesterday, I noted that Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas said ex-gay ministries don’t emphasize “gender-affirming” role modeling. Here’s an indication to the contrary: A statement by Exodus executive director Alan Chambers in the organization’s July 2003 newsletter (PDF document).

I know that the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is targeting our nation’s young people with a one sided message that homosexuality isn’t changeable and doing so with force, a lot of money and even more public support. And, that makes me mad. Why is it that GLSEN can raise more money to teach our children to hate God’s word, encourage them to try all forms of sexual perversion at a their young ages and convince our public school systems to endorse it while we sit here struggling for the money to hire one person to even try and simply talk to the kids who are dying on the vine? It isn’t right!

Now hear me: I am begging for your help, financial partnership, prayer support, and for you to be proactive in the host of other ways needed to meet the need as well as to prevent homosexuality. You can write a check today for $1.00 or $1,000,000, call your pastor and ask him/her to invite a representative from Exodus to speak, offer to pay your pastor or youth pastor’s way to the upcoming Exodus conference, attend school board meetings, city council meetings or support the local Exodus member or applicant ministry in your area. You can pray daily and specifically for God’s message of redemption and prevention to reach the world.

We can prevent homosexuality from gaining any more ground and if we work hard to proclaim to, educate and impact our culture we can begin preventing homosexuality in the lives of young people. We get calls
from kids as young as 9 who are experiencing same sex attraction issues. I know how awesome it was that I found help at 18. I can only imagine being able to really catch the majority of young people that early and earlier. It can be done because We Are the Church.

Call me a skeptic.

Preventing homosexuality in young kids would be achieved — how?

By promoting resentment toward antiviolence groups like GLSEN and falsely casting them as perverted anti-Christian organizations if they disagree with Exodus?

By supplanting a normal home life and public-school reading, writing and arithmetic with religious-right lessons in gender-affirming role modeling?

By redefining the church to include only the “We” who agree with Exodus?

Chambers never quite says how he intends to protect pre-teen children from the adolescent maturation process. However, the book ad following Chambers’ essay provides a clue:

A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality —by Joe Nicolosi

In the groundbreaking book A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality Joseph and Linda Ames Nicolosi uncover the most significant factors that contribute to children’s healthy sense of themselves as male or female. Listening to moving recollections from ex-gay men and women who describe what was missing in their own childhoods, the Nicolosis provide clear insight for identifying potential developmental roadblocks and give practical advice to parents for helping their children securely identify with their gender. Replete with personal stories from parents, children and ex-gay strugglers, A Parent’s Guide offers compassion and hope for all those parents who seek to lay a foundation for a healthy heterosexual identity in their children.

Regrettably, the ad contains no acknowledgment that the Nicolosis’ treatments are not working for 70 percent or more of ex-gays. (According to Chambers’ own claims of success rates. The Spitzer study suggests fewer succeed.) There’s no recognition that many gay men are, if anything, too masculine. And I find no indication that the Nicolosis respect the dignity, spirituality, or civil rights of those who are not helped by “gender affirmation.”

The situation surrounding Sharon Huff, the mother of the 7-year-old who was reprimanded for mentioning that he had two moms, will be considered during a special session by the Lafayette Parish School Board tonight. (Administrators assert that Marcus was reprimanded for being disruptive, not for what he said, and that school documents published by the ACLU do not tell the whole story.)

Speaking to Lafayette’s primary newpaper, The Advertiser, Sharon sounds reasonable and thoughtful.

“We will live our lives like we did before,” Huff said. “I am ready to get back to work and let everybody else deal with what is going on. I’ve said what I had to say.” …

Getting the ACLU involved in her son’s situation was not an easy call, Huff said.

“It took me about 24 hours to research different people on the Internet to find out who I wanted to talk to,” Huff said. “I decided I would call them to give me advice. I wanted to talk to someone who could tell me how to talk to the school without making it a big deal.”

The latter part did not happen as she anticipated, Huff said.

“This is not about a gay rights issue,” she said. “To me this is a child that is told they can’t talk about their family because their family is different.”

The Advertiser also spoke to others who said, “It could have been my kid.”

“One of my first thoughts … was that maybe we should pack up and move to Northampton (Mass.) where my children wouldn’t get in trouble,” [Amy Hackett] said. “I don’t want my children shamed.”

Hackett and her partner have two daughters, ages 15 months and almost 3. The girls were both adopted in Boston, but they decided to raise them here close to her partner’s family.

The FRC, Focus, CWA, AFA, PFOX, and Exodus all appear to have been silent on this so far. The story has been reported widely, with FOXNews.com carrying the AP version and conservative CNSNews.com ignoring it, so they’ve certainly heard about it.

From New Orleans, Times Picayune staff writer James Gill penned an opinion piece calling school admistrators to task for a “ham-fisted approach” and stubbornly delaying an inevitable apology, making the people of Louisiana “look like a bunch of yahoos”.

An apology will be forthcoming because the alternative is an ACLU lawsuit alleging that Marcus’s constitutional rights to free expression and equal protection were violated. No doubt they were, but litigation, and the attendant publicity, is only going to prolong the agony for Marcus and put him beyond the pale in the schoolyard.

Surely it is time his interests were regarded as paramount. The school system should issue a handsome apology, expunge the reprimand from his records and let all this legalistic blather die down. He is 7 years old, for crying out loud. Give him some peace, if it’s not too late.