June 22, 2008

Art Association Paid $75,000 to Avoid Libel Lawsuit

The College Art Association paid $75,000 to an Israeli scholar who threatened to bring a libel lawsuit against it in Britain, The Jewish Daily Forward reported, along with other details of a settlement agreement first reported by The Chronicle last week.

The scholar, Gannit Ankori, chair of the art-history department at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, had threatened to take action over a review of her book Palestinian Art in the fall 2007 issue of Art Journal, the association’s flagship publication. The contested review was written by Joseph A. Massad, an associate professor of Arab politics in the department of Middle East and Asian languages and culture at Columbia University.

In it, Mr. Massad alleged that Ms. Ankori had appropriated the work of a Palestinian artist and art historian, Kamal Boullata, without giving him proper credit. In a letter to the association, Ms. Ankori’s lawyers countered that the review contained false and defamatory statements and threatened to sue. The lawsuit was threatened in Britain, where her book had been published and where libel laws are more favorable to plaintiffs.

As part of the deal to resolve the dispute, the association issued an apology to Ms. Ankori and sent a letter to its institutional subscribers, stating that the review “contained factual errors and certain unfounded assertions.” It asked them to withdraw the relevant portions from circulation.

Mr. Massad, who is embroiled in a separate tenure battle at Columbia, acknowledged minor errors in his review but stood by his work. He characterized the association’s decision to settle rather than defend the review “a cowardly act.” —Jennifer Howard

Comments

1. It’s clear that we need a national law to ban all British libel verdicts from being enforced against Americans. No matter what side you’re on, it’s clear that free speech is at risk when book reviews lead to lawsuits rather than angry letters.

   — John K Wilson    Jun 23, 10:06 AM    #

2. To: John K. Wilson (#1)

   I am in full agreement with your sentiment —- however, in my opine, such a ban would also impose a de facto travel restriction —- for an “American Law” per se will have no legal validity in U.K. (or other jurisdictions), and the American found guilty (presumably in absentia), is potentially subject to arrest on U.K. soil.

   The “Settlement” given the payment, apology, withdrawal, etc., is an ipso facto acknowledgement of wrong-doing per se. —- short & simple.

   Not knowing the actual technicalities/details involved, I can’t meaningfully comment on the pertinent merits/demerits —- Would the damages awarded be higher? Easier to pay a small amount then incur the cost of litigation and be proven right? Publicity is not worth the hassle? Etc, etc.

   Howsoever, in my opine a “Settlement” per se. —- based on the article’s limited information, isn’t the correct course of action.

   Apropos, on the issue of “Laws” and “Free Speech” —- would like to see the appropriate change in U.K. Laws (and other Nation’s Laws) —- so that (per your sentiments) —- angry letters prevail over legal threats/litigation —- Maybe an International Agreement seeking such changes with agreeable safeguards, might be in order —- for the U.K. Libel Laws do have certain merits in their own right, in that they deter distortions, misrepresentations, unfounded malicious attacks, etc.

   — zahid    Jun 23, 12:20 PM    #

3. I have argued in the past in the context of the Rushdie case that publications must have First Amendment protection everywhere — as a goal of U.S. foreign and trade policy — or that they will lose it here. This is just one more example. Perhaps we could argue that these libel judgments are a restraint of trade in ideas in violation of the WTO.

   — Bruce Rockwood    Jun 23, 12:43 PM    #

4. Anyone who thinks academics is a civil profession is utterly naive. Cutthroats and scoundrels abound, chalk and blackboards, cannons and molotov cocktails.

   — Lakashi Jawri    Jun 23, 01:07 PM    #

5. Not a lawyer, but I don’t believe that any foreign citizen against whom an unpaid libel verdict is outstanding in Britain would in fact be liable to arrest. Neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service, I’m given to understand, see it as their duty to enforce the judgments of the civil courts.

   Setting aside for the moment the rights and wrongs of this particular case, I entirely agree that British libel law is out of control.

   — Gustave    Jun 23, 10:52 PM    #

6. The Art Journal has become such a mouthpiece for nutty left-wing propaganda, not incidentally taking the form of mediocre and instantly forgettable art, that it’s just sad.

   That said, it’s also a disgrace that the Israeli prof resorted to the British courts in the manner of Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz,* rather than using the academy’s own professonal mechanisms to resolve the issue.

   It’s a pity they can’t all lose.

   *
   http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/08/29/cstillwell.DTL
   http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10110971
   http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/11/07/libel_tourism_and_the_war_on_terror/
   http://www.nysun.com/foreign/libel-suit-leads-to-destruction-of-books/59706/

   — BenjaminL    Jun 24, 11:41 AM    #

Previous: Student at Iranian University Who Accused Official of Harassment Is Arrested
Next: 2 Journalism Schools in New York to Bolster New-Media Centers