Comment history

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

Sigmund says: "Unless of course your a vindictive on-air personality, who shall remain nameless, have an ax to grind, are filled with malice, your purpose is defamation, and you can convince someone else to do your dirty work for you"...

I believe it's been established that none of these characterizations has any basis in fact. Yet you keep making them, SIgmund. Whereas the article you claim to be libelous is, by admission of the mayor himself, true. So who exactly is doing the slandering here?

September 11, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

Look, I believe Vestal when he says he is not a racist, but a reasonable person could infer that the MLK Day reference in the email is exactly that. Werekoala, you make that point in spite of yourself: If the joke means what you say it does, then why don't they refer to, as you say, Arbor Day, Columbus Day, or whatever? The point is, they chose a holiday considered sacred specifically by the African-American community.

Would I describe it as pornographic? Probably not, as described. But again, it's close enough that we can put the ridiculous libel talk to rest.

The story will probably go away pretty quickly, since his constituents don't seem too bothered by it. But to call it libelous (as in, legally actionable) just because you disagree with its characterization of the email is, in a word, insane.

September 10, 2007 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

I would think they/d want to keep their reporter out of the story if possible. It's about what the mayor did, not the reporter.

But she is mentioned in the follow-up! Vestal's post ID'ing her is right there in this story. I don't understand what the purported coverup is supposed to be here.

September 10, 2007 at 6:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

Hmm, a picture of a naked woman accompanied by a derogatory reference to MLK Day.

Is that an example of "racist pornography?" Seems like a matter of opinion, but it's certainly close enough to absolve the writer of "malicious falsehood" charges.

September 10, 2007 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

If they decided the "pornographic" description was "over the top," then it stands to reason they would revise it. But if they were really concerned about legal ramifications, wouldn't they have taken the time to change the URL that you claim is a legal smoking gun?

September 10, 2007 at 6:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

Again, the "pornographic" characterization MAY have been an overstatement, but libelous? What a joke.

No one "trumped up the story" or "accused the mayor of a crime." There is absolutely no basis that I see for proving malicious falsehood, unless you've got some evidence that you aren't telling us about. The mayor admitted the truth of the story as reported. Question the news judgment if you want, defend the mayor if you want, but the bizarre conspiracy theories here are all hot air.

September 10, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

LJW broke the law?

While it may have been over the top to call this picture pornography (don't know, haven't seen it), it doesn't even come close to passing the smell test for libel. How could you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a picture of a naked woman passed around for amusement is absolutely, positively NOT pornography? And how on earth would you intend to prove malice? The burden in these cases is always on those wishing to abridge free speech (that would be you, by suing the newspaper) and in this case you'd be trying to nail them for reporting something that the mayor himself admits is a TRUE FACT!

The mayor sent an inappropriate email from what is, in point of fact, his official account (i.e. the one he uses for mayoral business). He admitted what he did was wrong, and quite graciously apologized. It looks as if he will be able to keep his job, and all credit to him for being forthright in his response. It's only certain sexist neanderthals on this thread ("reporterette," indeed) who want him to drag this sordid story out.

September 10, 2007 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayor says he'll keep job despite risque mail

Could not agree more, Flock.

The mayor does seem to be handling this well, and if Tonganoxie decides this incident is not a firing offense, good for them.

But the ugliness on these threads towards reporters -- who are only doing their jobs -- is unbelievable. The mayor knows what he did was wrong -- he admitted it and apologized. It's newsworthy because he's an elected official. If you can't stand the heat etc...

The outpouring of support for Vestal is admirable, but on this thread and the one yesterday it has become an ugly cyber lynch mob against the reporters. The name-calling, childishness, and downright sexism (reporterette?) is out of control. I mean, do you guys really believe all these conspiracy theories you spew out, or is this just sort of an amusing pastime for you?

September 10, 2007 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )