First-term Chicago treasurer Stephanie Neely may not have the star power of Mayor Richard Daley, who (like most elected officials) faces daily criticism in the press, but the New York Times reported how her threat of a defamation suit against one critic may not get very far. She has retained an Illinois injury attorney and claims that a Chicago police officer repeatedly defamed her in a union newsletter.
Before getting into the meat of the story, though, it would be helpful to briefly review defamation law.
FindLaw informs us that public officials and public figures (including celebrities) have a much higher standard of proof for libel or slander suits than the average Joe, and they have to prove that the alleged slanderer acted with "actual malice." The point is that the public has a right to scrutinize those in positions of power, which has always been the intended function of the press.
Which brings us back to Stephanie Neely and her lawsuit; the New York Times said she has been repeatedly criticized by Chicago cop Michael K. Shields in his regular column in the F.O.P. News (Fraternal Order of Police newsletter). Most notably, he has accused Stephanie Neely of casting votes favoring police pension fund managers who contributed to her campaign.
She claims she is entitled to "substantial damages" from the critical scribe for what she believes is libel (libel is when defamatory statements are put into writing). Michael Shields fired back in the newsletter and seems undeterred:
"It seems that if you accept campaign cash in Chicago, that's just business. If you speak out against it, that's libel!"
The treasurer, who sits on the police pension fund's board, refused to answer a subpoena for documents regarding deals between DV Urban Realty Partners and the city's pension funds. Michael Shields wrote that Stephanie Neely received campaign funds from DV Urban, then repeatedly questioned what he believed was a dubious relationship.
But as with any defamation case, the best defense is the truth. That means Stephanie Neely will have to prove that (a) Michael Shields was spreading lies and that (b) he did so out of actual malice, defined by the FindLaw as when the person who made the statement knew it was untruthful, or didn't care whether it was untrue or not and was reckless with the truth .
Related Resources:
-
Defamation: The Requirement of Fault (FindLaw)
-
Digital Defamation: The Hot New Tort? (FindLaw's Injured Blog)
-
Browse Chicago Injury Lawyers (FindLaw)
ShareThis
