Comments on: A Semantic Term of Interest http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/09/a-semantic-term-of-interest.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:59:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bruce Boyden http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/09/a-semantic-term-of-interest.html/comment-page-1#comment-65549 Bruce Boyden Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:39:05 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=20375#comment-65549 It's not too early to speculate about what the *next* term will be, after "person of interest" acquires secondary meaning. I nominate: "Person-we're-interested-in-talking-to, just-curious-really, nothing-out-of-the-ordinary, carry-on." It’s not too early to speculate about what the *next* term will be, after “person of interest” acquires secondary meaning. I nominate: “Person-we’re-interested-in-talking-to, just-curious-really, nothing-out-of-the-ordinary, carry-on.”

]]> By: Robert Heverly http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/09/a-semantic-term-of-interest.html/comment-page-1#comment-65537 Robert Heverly Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:01:16 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=20375#comment-65537 There are a few of cases that discuss "person of interest" in relation to defamation or reputation, but two are messy and not particularly helpful (one is the "anthrax doctor" case, which was primarily a convoluted federal claims case - Hatfill v. Ashcroft, 404 F.Supp.2d 104 (D.D.C. 2005) - the other involved a claim of privilege that was upheld - Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007)). One case that does seem to address the question, though without much discussion, is Dicus v. State of Washington Dept. of Natural Resources (unpublished; 100 Wash.App. 1063, 2000 WL 669654): "Mr. Dicus failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation. First, he was unable to produce specific, material facts that any of the alleged defamatory statements were false. Admittedly, Mr. Dicus presented declarations and affidavits of persons to whom Mr. Wruble allegedly made statements regarding Mr. Dicus's status as a person of interest in the arson investigations. However, statements that communicate ideas or opinions cannot support a defamation claim, because false ideas are not actionable. [citation omitted]. The court found and the record supports that Mr. Dicus was, at one time, being investigated as an arson suspect." Not much help, really; I'm not sure why "person of interest" conveys an idea or opinion (or how that analysis would differ from "suspect"), but if we ignore that, it seems like the court is saying that if the person was actually a "person of interest" then that person can be identified as a "person of interest" and such identification will not be defamatory. Interesting (sorry, I couldn't resist). There are a few of cases that discuss “person of interest” in relation to defamation or reputation, but two are messy and not particularly helpful (one is the “anthrax doctor” case, which was primarily a convoluted federal claims case – Hatfill v. Ashcroft, 404 F.Supp.2d 104 (D.D.C. 2005) – the other involved a claim of privilege that was upheld – Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007)). One case that does seem to address the question, though without much discussion, is Dicus v. State of Washington Dept. of Natural Resources (unpublished; 100 Wash.App. 1063, 2000 WL 669654):

“Mr. Dicus failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation. First, he was unable to produce specific, material facts that any of the alleged defamatory statements were false. Admittedly, Mr. Dicus presented declarations and affidavits of persons to whom Mr. Wruble allegedly made statements regarding Mr. Dicus’s status as a person of interest in the arson investigations. However, statements that communicate ideas or opinions cannot support a defamation claim, because false ideas are not actionable. [citation omitted]. The court found and the record supports that Mr. Dicus was, at one time, being investigated as an arson suspect.”

Not much help, really; I’m not sure why “person of interest” conveys an idea or opinion (or how that analysis would differ from “suspect”), but if we ignore that, it seems like the court is saying that if the person was actually a “person of interest” then that person can be identified as a “person of interest” and such identification will not be defamatory.

Interesting (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

]]> By: michael webster http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/09/a-semantic-term-of-interest.html/comment-page-1#comment-65536 michael webster Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:37:29 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=20375#comment-65536 Reasonable thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1935663 Reasonable thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1935663

]]>