Caustic & Confrontational...

[JustPastBuffalo]

...but not guilty.

An appeals court says (WHAM Rochester talk show host) Bob Lonsberry isn’t guilty of defamation for “obviously caustic and confrontational” remarks.

Lonsberry asked the sister of a man who'd been acquitted of criminally negligent homicide how it felt to have a "cold blooded murderer" in the family. The talkhost had interviewed the mother of the victim, who said John Gisel had never apologized to the family. Gisel's sister then phoned Lonsberry at Clear Channel's WHAM, Rochester (1180) to explain that her brother's lawyer had instructed him not to contact the family of victim Brandon Haugh. Lonsberry suggested the hunting death wasn't an accident, despite the trial verdict. The sister filed suit in 2010 and now the New York Law Journal reports that the Appellate Division has ruled in Lonsberry's favor. It says his comments were "obviously intended to be caustic and confrontational, rather than factual." At one point in the phone dialogue, Lonsberry asked the woman whether her brother "put a notch in the stock of his gun as he kills people." The appeals court ruled that Lonsberry's on-air comments were "nonactionable expressions of pure opinion."

The decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department can be read here.

 

[jas2525]

...but not guilty.

An appeals court says (WHAM Rochester talk show host) Bob Lonsberry isn’t guilty of defamation for “obviously caustic and confrontational” remarks.

Lonsberry asked the sister of a man who'd been acquitted of criminally negligent homicide how it felt to have a "cold blooded murderer" in the family. The talkhost had interviewed the mother of the victim, who said John Gisel had never apologized to the family. Gisel's sister then phoned Lonsberry at Clear Channel's WHAM, Rochester (1180) to explain that her brother's lawyer had instructed him not to contact the family of victim Brandon Haugh. Lonsberry suggested the hunting death wasn't an accident, despite the trial verdict. The sister filed suit in 2010 and now the New York Law Journal reports that the Appellate Division has ruled in Lonsberry's favor. It says his comments were "obviously intended to be caustic and confrontational, rather than factual." At one point in the phone dialogue, Lonsberry asked the woman whether her brother "put a notch in the stock of his gun as he kills people." The appeals court ruled that Lonsberry's on-air comments were "nonactionable expressions of pure opinion."

The decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division Fourth Judicial Department can be read here.

Lonsberry said the guy was a murderer even though he was acquitted. This case doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as the OJ case. Of course tons of people insist OJ is a murderer, regardless of the verdict---although, the civil trial DID result in a finding of liability.

I don't believe any court finding supports Lonsberry's assertion.

So, is what Lonsberry said slander or not?

 

[heydaybegone]

I find it difficult to see the position being taken on this thread. JPB..thank you for the link.

Is is a plus side to Talk Radio...or down side to Talk Radio ???

This can get ugly so I'm looking to clarify before being taken outside ;D

HDBG

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Lonsberry said the guy was a murderer even though he was acquitted. This case doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as the OJ case. Of course tons of people insist OJ is a murderer, regardless of the verdict---although, the civil trial DID result in a finding of liability. I don't believe any court finding supports Lonsberry's assertion.

So, is what Lonsberry said slander or not?

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, so from what I derive reading the decision as a radio person who was involved in talk radio for ten years, the answer is, in plain English, "no."

The ruling states the plaintiff has no standing in a claim for damages. The Court didn't rule 'in favor' of Lonsberry so much as (and this is a significant point, from what attorneys have told me over the years) it dismissed the plaintiff's claim, stating Lonsberry's words used did not 'damage' the plaintiff. Summary judgment means, to the best of my knowledge, "We're done here. Final answer." Does the ruling mean that Lonsberry has carte blanche (a free hand) to say whatever he pleases? I'm guessing he and the attorneys had a pleasant post-op 'advisory' meeting.

I find it difficult to see the position being taken on this thread ... This can get ugly so I'm looking to clarify before being taken outside ;D HDBG

I originally posted for the sake of discussion rather than a dust-up or throw down. I'll leave that to A and Rox, coming soon to a thread near you. From what we've seen and heard over the years, this ruling doesn't strike me as unusual. On that account, I suppose one good argue whether it's 'good' or 'bad' as it relates to talk radio and radio in general. A cynic might opine "Same lawn, different dog."