Guy Sues Newspaper Editor For Refusing To Remove Articles He Doesn't Like About His Son

from the that's-not-how-the-press-works dept

Romenesko points us to the news that the father of a former Berkeley student/football player, Chris Purtz, who passed away last year is now suing the editor of the Daily Cal (the student-run newspaper associated with the University of California at Berkeley) for refusing to remove an article from a few years ago, about an embarrassing incident involving Purtz. Purtz's father is claiming that the article, which talked about Chris being suspended from the football team after a "physical confrontation" at an adult club in San Francisco, should be deleted since it "inflicts harm" on his son's memory. Of course, that's not quite how freedom of the press works, so it seems unlikely that this lawsuit will get very far. Even odder, is that the lawsuit isn't even targeting the newspaper itself, but the editor (who didn't even work for the paper at the time the original article was printed). As numerous legal experts in the article linked above note, the elder Purtz has almost no chance of succeeding in this case. What they don't mention, is that in filing this lawsuit, Purtz has also called a lot more attention to the story he wished to bury.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 11:28am

    Frankly, the guy is wrong in this case. The editor was just putting out factual information about his son being arrested for a crime.
    That's a little different than just putting out someone's personal sexual wiles/preferences for no other reason than to titillate readers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 11:32am

    There are so many attacks on non-preferable truths, it seems.

    The fact that [insert genocidal dictator here] is being accurately reported in history books as a genocidal dictator is damaging to his memory. Someone should sue the historians!

    Brilliant solution for the Emperor: Put on some clothes instead of trying to sue people who point out that you're buck naked. Also, realize that you can't purge reports of your nudity once those reports are online, so get over it and move on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Simon, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 11:46am

    Re:

    Exactly!

    All we really need to know about Hitler is that he loved his dog. Let's get rid of the other crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 11:57am

    Mr Purtz, meet my friend Barbara ... wanna hear her sing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:06pm

    Re: Re:

    dammit people! Can we have one day without saying Hitler!?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:11pm

    The newspaper articla didn't inflict harm on the son's memory, The son's actions did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Obviously not...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Obviously not..."

    Sure we could. All we need to do is figure out some semi-abitrary way of identifying those types of people that tend to bring up Hitler on blogs. And really, let's throw mentions of fascism, Mao, and communism in there as well. Once we've got our method for identifying them, you just round them all up.

    Now, we could kill all these people, but that seems like a waste. I suggest we put these people who won't stop bringing up Hitler into a series of barely livable settlements. Let's call them, oh I don't know, clustering grounds. There we can kill off the weak and the old Hitler-mentioners, since really they're a drain on the civilized discussion of we undeniably more perfect peoples, and put the others to work creating the vehicles and materials needed to round up even more of these people.

    Then, once our nation is decidedly depleted of these cancerous Hitler-talkers, we can assist our nearby neighbor nations in doing the same through, er, aggressive teaching techniques. Once we've spread this movement across the planet, the world will be a more perfect place, free from Hitler talkers!

    See? Perfect plan for never having to talk about Hitler again....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Greg G, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Re:

    Agreed.

    That's like the woman that asks the question: Does this dress make me look fat?

    No.... your fat makes you look fat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:38pm

    This case has no merit but it's always easier to sue the employee than the business. Remember if your boss tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, then you're personally liable. Example - if you work in retail, and your boss tells you to not accept warranty returns and you follow that order then you personally are liable for any actions - same if your boss told you to shoot someone and you do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    At some point, you've gotta let it go....what good does this lawsuit serve? The father needs to stop feeding his anger and rage....see it for what it is, a non-issue printed in a student newspaper. Laugh it off like "oh that rascal son of mine...heh heh.." and enjoy his memory...dont bring it up for bloggers to run with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    All we need to do is figure out some semi-abitrary way of identifying those types of people that tend to bring up Hitler on blogs.

    Here's an idea. Put a star next to their names on the blogs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re:

    What's really weird is I heard Hitler's dog was Druish...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Funny, she didn't LOOK Druish....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Charlie Potatoes, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 1:28pm

    Hitler, the word ...

    I have just copyrighted the word HITLER. You all owe me now if you use the word or any variation thereof. I am hoping that the word "hitler-esque" will catch on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

    Re:

    That's my reaction too. I understand that he might not be able to be objective or clear thinking on the matter (grief is a terrible blinder), so while he believes he's defending his son, he cannot see that dredging this up would only serve to re-sully his memory with something that should've been left in obscurity.

    Damn sad shame all round.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Hitler, the word ...

    You're the first one going on the truck when we start rounding you people up....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 2:22pm

    Harvey Purtz, now everyone knows your son Chris Purtz was a racist and homophobe THANKS TO YOU moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 3:14pm

    What a putz!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Mikael (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 4:13pm

    Re:

    Um...You're not exactly correct there. People in the wrong try to sue the person with the least chance of defense. They probably thought that suing the editor directly he would change his mind, but he's not. They probably didn't think he would be able to have adequate defense attorneys and figured he'd cave before anything really happened. If they really knew they could win this at the beginning they would have sued the paper and not the editor personally.

    Also not taking warranty returns because your manager told you not to is VERY different from shooting someone because they told you to do it. If it's a documented policy that you take warranty returns and you are told not to by your manager you would have to just be an idiot not to take those returns without getting that instruction in writing. Otherwise you could just lose your job when the boss says they never told you not to take the returns. You can refuse the order and if you get fired for it you can sue the company because you were following policy and the boss told you to violate it. If they tell you to shoot someone and you do it, it's ALL on you unless the boss was holding a gun to your head when they told you to do it.

    Now about the story, this man has no grounds to sue the editor or anyone for that matter. The article was published back in 2006 and the son died last year in June. Four years have past since the article was published, and you can't ask someone to remove it because you don't like how it depicts your son who is now dead. Just because they don't like what their son did and don't like how it made him look, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like many others, I had no idea who he was until I saw this article. If you do a google search now for the son's name, the first few pages are nothing but other sites talking about the lawsuit and the article from 2006. From reading some of the content on the sites talking about this I was given the impression that the son was the kind of guy that gave the outward appearance of being this nice perfect son/student, but when with his equally as douchebag friends he was probably an asshole. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it still doesn't change the fact that he did what he did at that strip club.

    The parents screwed up and now they have to deal with everyone knowing about not only the 2006 article, but now the ones about their ridiculous lawsuit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    John Duncan Yoyo, Jan 20th, 2011 @ 4:53pm

    Re: Re:

    Godwin's Law VS Streisand Effect on today's Oprah.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    velox (profile), Jan 20th, 2011 @ 10:28pm

    You can't defame the dead (in most states)

    Regardless of what may or may not have been said in the newspaper article, and regardless of whether it was true or not, it doesn't matter.
    Generally you can't defame the dead, as the dead legally do not have a reputation to protect. Five states however, do have statutes regarding defamation of the dead.
    California is not one of them.

    On a side note --- I'm just curious, why do some lawyers file lawsuits that they know have zero chance of success?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    David, Jan 21st, 2011 @ 4:12am

    Re: You can't defame the dead (in most states)

    "On a side note --- I'm just curious, why do some lawyers file lawsuits that they know have zero chance of success?"

    Er.....they still have to be paid!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 21st, 2011 @ 7:09am

    Re: Re: You can't defame the dead (in most states)

    Exactly!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 2nd, 2011 @ 12:02pm

    "should be deleted since it "inflicts harm" on his son's memory"

    If it's true - then it's accurate. If there was harm inflicted, it was due to his son's actions - not reporting of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    rugger 74, Mar 18th, 2011 @ 6:34pm

    Re: comment

    that exactly why the trash articles should have been taken down so village idiots like you and cowards dont have access to them and harm peoples reputations while you hide behind the computer

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Dabi Kanyinsola, Mar 21st, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    What a waste of time

    What's the point of chasing a wild goose? Besides it doesn't change a thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This