It’s Go time for Dan Scott

When will Janklow depose Randell Beck? Where can I buy tickets??

Maybe the Argus Leader will finally learn to stop attacking Republicans who are sick of their arrogance and are willing to fight back.

The Argus must have known this was coming soon, since they decided to pick this week to run a four-part series on Janklow’s release of 36 prisoners in 1986.

They tried their best to make it look like Janklow created a mini crime wave by letting those 36 out due to prison overcrowding.

I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut, that if you review any 36 prisoners at random, that have been released under normal circumstances, you’ll find a re-occurrance rate almost exactly the same as the “Janklow 36″, as the Argus Liar called them.

Bottom line, the 36 he let out had equal, or possibly less effect (since he made them leave SD) than they would have when their sentences would have normally expired.

Nice try, Liar, but that one’s pretty easy to figure out.

Janklow 2 - Argus Liar 0

disappointing about that series was that it could have been about recitivism,with a pretty interesting study group - some folks generally viewed to be lower risk, non-violent. Instead, they kept calling our 36 South Dakota prisoners the “Janklow 36″ - now why do that? they weren’t his - any more than they are any other reader or citizens. Similarly, who cares how he reacts, or doesn’t to it, what is interesting is how these individuals acted when given a second chance (or third or fifth or whatever). The personal slams at Governor Janklow by inuendo were inappropriate and detracted from an interesting series.

Looks like it was a good day for due process. Over in the twin cities, a jury today convicted millionaire Robert Beale on all seven counts of tax evasion and flight to avoid prosecution he was charged with. This is the guy who JAIL’ers Ron Branson and Bill Stegmeier lauded for his fight against corrupt judges, the IRS, little green men blah, blah blah.

Beale got his employees to cook his books, then went on the lamb for 14 months leaving them to go to jail while he took the cash on an extended vacation.

Quite the patriot. The jury said he’s not above the law, we’ll see what happens when Dan takes on big media.

Regarding “Janklow’s 36″, isn’t there a board that reccomends who be released for parole and early release? I don’t think any governor goes through the whole list of potentials and does the choosing. He did give the ok but I think others do the choosing.

Once the Argus stops attacking Republicans every day then they won’t get their arrogant noses in binds like this one.

This is a victory against liberal activist reporters and editors

Before you start celebrating, my Republican friends, there’s a lot of law yet to play out. The Argus will not settle and if they lose at trial will appeal as far as they can take it. That’s what major media companies do in First Amendment cases like this. My guess is that Gannett won’t be writing a check in this case. Scott is going to have to show actual malice as a public figure, which is really, really tough to prove. Janklow is an excellent lawyer but he isn’t exactly up against patsies on the other side either.

I’m just sayin’.

Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

Gannett will fight this, because in the McPaper corporate offices, Beck is probably a hero.

Republican or Democrat, this case may be death of the Argus unless they settle. the Argus needs to pray the 1st amendment will save them because jury likely will not. If a jury finds malice, any appeals court will be hard pressed to reverse a jury.
Also, to win, the Argus has to admit they are NOT to be taken seriously. Probably not tactic to increase rapidly declining sales.
It would be best to settle this case with an apology, an undisclosed amount of money and no admission of wrong doing.

Interesting how Dan Scott as development foundation head and Randell Beck as newspaper editor treated one another with their cheapshots as leading representatives of Sioux Falls, South Dakota’s greatest economic success story. They both should look in the mirror. Get serious, this really isn’t about the First Amendment. This is about two guys who let their egos go unchecked at the wrong times and who let their feelings get hurt too easily.

Janklow has already won. He will be able to depose all the Argus “reporters” who manufactured this hit piece to retaliate against someone who didn’t lick their boots. He will get ALL the evidence. And everyone will know how the Argus picks and chooses its favorites. And how they smear their opponents/Republicans.

i actually thought the janklow 36 series was interesting. c’mon, you all can’t deny that any gov who lets a prisoner loose who later rapes a young woman is a big story, not to mention the other examples the story gave. interesting. upsetting.

that said, the timing of the series is pretty obvious. not cool.

22 years ago it was a story. Is is now? Does it deserve 4 days? How many other prisoners have been cut loose early and committed another crime? Does Jeremy Brunner ring a bell? Did the Argus go after the state for that? This was not journalism.

I think the Argus will fight this, with Gannett’s full backing. The powers that be in the McPaper chain probably think Beck is a hero.

8:30, i would argue that this series was, indeed, good journalism. too late. way too late. but still good.

and i don’t recall, but if the argus didn’t do a story on jeremy brunner, then that was a bad decision.

but as i recall, brunner was released for very different — and more legitimate — reasons than the so-called “janklow 36.”

The 1st Amendment is the foundation of this country, and anyone who challenges it is not only UnAmerican and UnPatriotic, they don’t deserve to practice law or serve as a lawmaker. As a satarist myself, this is a very sad day. Caldwell, Scott and Janklow should all be ashamed of themselves. They have only weakened a country today, not made it stronger.

I’ll pray for you Bill Janklow.

Somethings I thought were interesting from the Janklow 36 series:

1. The people of SD are not served by deals being cut at 2:30 in the morning out of the public eye. Is this where the term sunshine laws come from?

2. The AL was trying to make a hatchet job, not at Janklow’s expense but at SD Government openness. We could spend hours talking about the hundreds of items Rounds doesn’t think the citizens of this state can handle knowing.

3. Providing follow up services for recently released prisoners is an important step. I think parole would have been a better option for these 36. At least the state would have known where they were.

It’s great seeing Janklow in the news again - I miss him!

So Detroit, that was satire, right???

You can’t be serious.

anon 10:17

I didn’t take it as satire.

The first Amendment is the most important one.

That’s probably why it was first.

There have been thousands, if not millions of parody letters, cartoons, articles, and statements published throughout our history.

Any attempt to stifle freedom of expression should be
examined very carefully, especially where public figures are involved.

Otherwise, every time someone draws a cartoon of some public figure saying something they didn’t actually say would become subject to a lawsuit. And the Harvard, and National Lampoon people would all be in jail by now.

I say, let’s not go there.

“The first Amendment is the most important one.

That’s probably why it was first.”

Actually, it was third:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blfirstbor.htm

Actually, what we now refer to as the 1st Amendment was really the 3rd Amendment. It’s just that the first wasn’t ratified, and the second wasn’t ratified until much, much later:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blfirstbor.htm

Detroit, is this really the extent of your knowledge and understanding of the Constitution? Or are you just displaying a knee-jerk reaction to Janklow?

The last time I looked the First Amendment included freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition the government for a redress of a wrong.

None are preeminent or unlimited or not subject to other enumerated rights and limits.

I can’t form a religion that includes canibalization even if the eatee is willing to be sacrificed.

I can’t assemble a political protest in your home.

The press is not free to act maliciously toward individual citizens.

And anyone who asserts that Dan Scott has no right to petition the government and hire the attorney of his choice is either UNAMERICAN and UNPATRIOTIC or grossly ignorant of the 1st Amendment.

“The press is not free to act maliciously toward individual citizens.”

That’s news to me, Troy. Since when?

p.s. Troy, Bill O’Riley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, Kieth Oberman, and a host of others do it every single day.

(A) public official may not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood related to his official conduct “unless he proves that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The court later extended this rule beyond “public officials” to cover libel suits brought by all “public figures.” Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).

Also New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Gertz v. Welsh: The standard for private citizens is that malice isn’t even required to win a defamation suit.

Malice:

1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.

2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.

Troy- Not sure how a FAKE and obviously SATIRICAL column constitutes malice? Did Dan Scott lose his job over it? Nope. Did his wife and kids leave him? Nope. Did suffer health problems from it? Nope. Did his friends stop calling him? Nope. I’m still curious what damage has been done to him? Most people would have forgotten about it already if Dan Scott wouldn’t have sued.

This is being done as revenge by the vindictive Bill Janklow and his long time hard-on over how the AL treats him.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee that people understand satire, some people just are dense, is that reason enough to challenge our greatest Amendment? I don’t think so. Dan Scott and Bill Jankalow are big kids, I think they can take a joke. But apparently not.

Besides, as I understand it, Scott threw the first punch, by publicly making a joke at the expense of the AL at the gathering he was speaking at, with Garson and Beck in attendence. Did he think they wouldn’t respond? Can they countersue because he started it?

Will you tort reformers go back to hating lawyers just as soon as this case is over?

You’d have to be pretty dim to not recognize that editorial as parody.

This ruling is not some great victory for Scott. He survived dismissal as a matter of law. Big deal. It says nothing about the merits of the claim

OK, Troy. I think I might have to talk a reporter into saying something bad about me so I can sue their butts off.

I could probably start the suit right here at SDWC, but I don’t think PP has any more money than I do (…which is zilch, so why bother?)

Instead, I think I might go looking for some big dog with a fat billfold to slander me.

Any ideas?

Hopefully when this is all said and done, no matter who wins, the Argus will realize that the First Amendment doesn’t give them the right to use their rag as a tool for revenge.

It seems since Beck got to town, he relishes in telling us how stupid and backwards we are. If someone responds, he seeks revenge.

That’s not what the First Amendment stands for.

I disagree with some of the comments. I think Gannett will fight it, because the McPaper corporate honchos probably think Beck is a hero.

Detroit: All matters for a court to decide and a right to petition for resolution afforded Scott in the First Amendment.

Anooner & Detroit: I’m one of those dim ones. When I first read it, I thought Dan had gone off the deep end.

But, Anooner, you may be right that the merits aren’t there. I don’t know but the jury will assess the merits. I’m sure if he wins, higher courts will weigh in.

However, if Detroit is correct that this is in retaliation for a joke, it might improve the merits of it being “malice”.

Bill, Detroit gives a good definition of malice. Nobody, not even the press, has a right to act maliciously. Furthermore, the first question is “was there malice?” If there was malice, then they measure the consequences of the malicious act to determine damages.

Final point: An act that has malice has by definition a component of hate. Isn’t this the rationale for the extra penalty for “hate speech?”

Do you think Keith Olberman hates Bill O’Riley, Troy?

Yes or no, how many times has he called him
“The worst person in the worrrrrld.”?

He’s also tagged some private citizens the same way.

I’m not saying it’s right Troy, but he does have the right, you know?

Troy, don’t confuse malicious speech in general with malice as a component of the defamation of a public figure. Standing alone, the first is usually not actionable, unless it is one of the narrowly carved out exceptions to the 1st A.

Bill,

There is “crass, petty and boorish” which is what I consider Oberman’s “worst person in the world” and O’Reilly’s “Patriot and Pinhead”. I switch the channel on both when they come on. I think that it is especially egregiious when they go after people who are not public officials or celebrities who crave public attention.

anooner, I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to what is actionable. Not your fault. Mine. I just know that there is speech (individual and in the press) which can be determined as malicious and unprotected. It is the foundation of “hate speech”.

And, it appears that the judge has ruled that there is an open question in this matter.

Troy- You thought that was an actual apology from Dan Scott? C’mon. Are you just saying that for the sake of the argument? I didn’t know much about Dan Scott before this all started, but I did know he was the head of the Development Foundation of the largest city in SD. You don’t get that job unless you are an extremely reputable and intelligent professional, which I assume Dan Scott is. That is why I could tell the column was satire, because it sounded like a crazed idiot wrote it. Not some of Beck’s best satire, but pretty damn obvious if you ask me.

Here is the editorial in question:

http://www.sdmoderate.com/2007/11/27/scott-lawsuit-against-argus-goes-to-court/

It looks like parody to me.

Detroit, why do you keep asking me to admit my stupidity?

I really thought he was trying to be funny or make light of the situation and didn’t think before he sent it.

The editorial clearly states that Scott’s real letter is available on the Argus website and disclaims the one Beck wrote as a “reasonable facsimile.”

Some of the people listening to Orson Welles’s “War of the Worlds” on the radio thought we were really being invaded by Martians too.

Now that’s the difference between broadcast and print media. Those radio listeners can be forgiven for freaking out if they didn’t hear the disclaimer at the beginning of the program.

But when it’s right there in front of you in black and white, for you to read over as many times as you like, there’s really no way a reasonable person would think that was Scott’s actual letter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Legal_aspects

As far as hate speech goes, Rush Limbaugh’s calling for riots at the Democratic convention this year is much more questionable to me that what Beck did here.

But then, I’m probably not going to be on the jury, huh?

There WAS Actual Malice behind the Argus story, and everybody knows it. The question is if Janklow can PROVE it.

The whole Dan Scott “scandal” was manufactured by the Argus, because earlier in Dan’s speech, he had told a joke at the ARgus’s expense and everyone who was in the room laughed. Randell Beck got up at that point and stormed out of the room. Later, Scott made his “get out of our way comment.” That too was a joke and it was taken as one by those who were present.

If you look back to the original article, you will see that the “outrage” expressed at Dan’s comment was stated ONLY BY THOSE WHO WEREN’T THERE. Read out of context, it could be upsetting.

But that hit job was not enough for the Argus. After Dan sent out an apology, they printed their “parody” without any indication that it was as such. I am not a dumb guy, and I read the Argus editorial page most days, as well as numerous satirical sites, and I thought that it was really his letter at first.

So it is just obvious that the Argus was mad at Dan Scott and turned their wrath on him. Just like they discovered the “Janklow 36″ story 22 years late and “happened” to print a four-day story the week the judge’s ruling came down.

BUT CAN BILL JANKLOW PROVE IT?

I doubt it, because the Argus people can just lie on the stand. It is very hard to prove actual malice without some “smoking gun” (such as a tape of Randell Beck saying “let’s get that Dan Scott”).

But Janklow gets to depose everyone and upset alot in discovery. It will be fun to watch him try!

Anon,

Why would the Argus print a “reasonable facsimile” of letter when they had the original and said so right in the editorial?

These are the two paragraphs immediately preceding the parody letter:

“Some public officials across the state characterized the remark as divisive and arrogant. Seeking to mend fences, members of the foundation’s board asked Scott to write a letter of apology to lawmakers.

Scott’s letter, dated July 5, is available at argusleader.com. Or you can read a reasonable facsimile right here.”

It’s one thing to say you read the article (I’m guessing you just scanned it at first) and another to say that you understood it.

Did you get that it was parody when you read it the second time?

It’s no use Bill, they do not get it.

Troy, BTW, I’m not asking you to admit to being stupid, I’m asking you to admint to satirical ignorance. That doesn’t make you stupid. I don’t watch sports, so if someone would ask me what an RBI was and I gave the wrong answer, does that make me stupid? No, it makes me ignorant to sports. Like I said before, not Beck’s best work, but definately right up his alley.

Here is an example of satire that was taken for real. The AL printed this toon with an editorial about the mysterious placement of a plaque to entrance of Falls Park. I copied the plaque’s look, but changed the image (added a crown) and changed the text. And people actually thought it was the real deal. C’mon!

http://www.southdacola.com/blog/?p=46

Detroit, I think I’m selectively satirically ignorant. I get Bill most of the time, I get nearly all the time, and I get about half the time (was it his Philly speech or North Carolina speech on Wright that was satire? They both can’t be the truth. )

I just didn’t get Dan’s (I mean Beck’s).

DL, my old art prof told us all in our freshman year that if we were going to choose a career in the arts we were volunteering to be different than almost everybody else, and that it would be difficult to communicate sometimes. I thought he was just kidding, but the longer I live, the more right I find he was.

I remember trying to describe some advertising ideas to my clients in the early days, looking into their blank faces, realizing they weren’t following me, and thinking to myself “what do I have to do, draw you a picture?”

Then it hit me.

Of course I have to draw them a picture.

That’s why they hired me.

Doh!

(scratching head over Troy’s last post… thinking there are names missing… guessing the last one was Obama, thinking the middle one might be…ummm…ummm.)

Hey, I’m tryin’ over here.

Bill, is your post satire? Or do I really make your head itch?

One of those typing, answering the phone, drinking coffee and listening to ESPN mistakes. Yes, Obama was unconsciously deleted. Becoming more common now that the dream has become a nightmare. Is that satirical?

Yes, Troy, yours is both satire and metaphor. My head scratching on the other hand is more figurative than factual, tongue in cheek perhaps, but not satirical. Even so, I’m still doing it. Who is the middle person that you get “nearly all the time”?

(Take your time, finish your coffee— no more poly-phasic multi-tasking… Ok, now there’s a little satire.)

I forget now. Either Detroit or my wife who like you find it easy to go over my head.

I guess not only does he not get satire, he can’t write it either.

Never intentionally, my friend. And I’d hate to have to admit (and probably can’t even count) how many times you have gone over mine.

Like I said, DL, we should be glad. If everybody could do it, we’d be out of work. (wink)

Hard to put someone like myself out of work when I’m not getting paid to do the work anyway.

Sorry to hear that DL, your paintings are killer.