Oprah defamation suit, arising in Africa, filed in Philadelphia

Oprah Winfrey is the subject of a defamation lawsuit filed in a Philadelphia court - the alleged defamation being that "Winfrey suggested that [plaintiff] Nomvuyo Mzamane, 39, of Philadelphia, knew about alleged abuse by a dorm matron [in a Winfrey-sponsored South Africa girls' school] and tried to cover it up." Mzamane, ex-headmistress of the school, claims that she can't get work in the field because of Oprah's allegations, but the litigation strategy may be risky. Is Mzamane an involuntary public figure, or perhaps a limited-purpose public figure in her role as (former) headmistress of a school sponsored by one of the world's most famous people?

It is likely that a court will find that there is at least a compelling public interest in the behavior of a school official with respect to the alleged abuse of students by a person under the official's control. Although Mzamane may not have intently thrust herself into the controversy, she may well be regarded as a public figure for purposes of discussing this controversy, in which case she would have to demonstrate actual malice on Oprah's part to carry a suit forward. And actual malice will be hard to prove given that Mzamane herself, in a previous interview, had suggested that Oprah "may have been guided with bad information" and described Oprah as possibly having been "ill-advised." Absent a specific statement by Oprah specifying wrongdoing on Mzamane's part, and evidence that Oprah knew the truth to be otherwise, this lawsuit likely does not survive a motion for summary judgment.

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time the talk show diva has been sued for defamation. In 1998, Texas cattle ranchers sued--and lost--over a show in which Oprah discussed mad cow disease, and the practice of cattle being fed "protein supplements produced from the wastes of slaughtered cattle" (ewww!) resulting in "Winfrey's disgusted vow that she would never eat another hamburger." The plaintiff's claimed that even though Oprah "never touched specifically on Texas cattle or named the plaintiffs," she seriously harmed their market, causing prices to plummet. Now that's market power.

Oprah moved her show to Texas for the duration of that trial. So, will she be setting up in Philly for this one? Time will tell, but this case just might be a bigger boon to Oprah's ratings than a hit to Oprah's pocketbook.

Here comes the pun: stay tuned!

Unless otherwise indicated, all images on this blog are from the Wikimedia Commons.

A succint opinion.

Another case that has caught my eye, Randle v. Viacom, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32092 (S.D. Tex 2008). Interesting facts, no-nonsense conclusion. For a taste of this judge's style, look no further than the opening salvo:

• Two music promoters visited a friend in prison and posed for a photograph with him. Years later, a television program used the picture in a documentary about the friend. The promoters sued the television channel, its parent company, and an Internet vendor for defamation and misappropriation of their image. They lose.

Why read any further? You know how it ends - still, the facts are entertainingly novel. The documentary series was called "American Gangster," and the gang member being visited was Larry Hoover, of Chicago. The visit at issue occurred more than twenty years before the picture taken during that visit was used. The most serious alleged defamatory statement occurred in a commercial for the series, in which the faces of the music promoters "showed on screen for one second as the words 'they were killers, they were criminals' were spoken."

The judge concludes that the plaintiffs suffered no compensable harm to their reputations, noting that viewers "would not know who [the promoters] were after seeing their 20-year old picture; they would not know what crime they had helped Hoover commit." I think the judge is a bit too quaint in observing:

• Reasonable viewers may conclude that the promoters are disreputable people from the picture and the explanation of Hoover's history. A viewer might infer that normal people do not visit guys in prison -- and have a snap shot taken with him. To that extent, the promoters may have lost standing in their community, but they cannot complain of a broadcast of accurate pictures of their social choices.

There are over two million Americans in prison now, and they may have parents, spouses (Hoover's visitors were accompanied by his spouse, who took the picture at issue), siblings, children, extended family members, and yes, even friends who visit them in prison. On the other hand, this statistic should hurt the plaintiffs rather then helping them, as it reduces any negative inference to be drawn from a picture of people visiting a prisoner. Indeed, another point raised in the opinion is the utterly flimsy nature of the alleged harm, supported only by "an affidavit of vague hearsay statements about why a potential partner dropped out of a deal."

At the end of the day, I think this is the correct outcome, although I also think that a reasonable viewer would understand the reference to "killers" to refer to the subjects of the series generally, and not the pair flashing in the pan in a one-second photo spot. If this was indeed the tenor of the narration, I would like to have seen a bit more analysis of this point, but the judge had the evidence in front of her, so I won't continue to second guess more than I already have.