The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
A Circuit Court judge reversed his own decision Thursday to shut down a website criticizing Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot, clearing the way for the site to reactivate.
Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Poston reconsidered the day-old motion without legal prompting and concluded "that the temporary injunction should not have been granted."
Burfoot, seeking a third term on City Council, sued Wednesday to take down the website, May4thcounts.com.
The website appeared last week and detailed alleged business dealings of downtown clubs and bars. Several bars and restaurants closed last year during an aggressive city code enforcement campaign.
Fellow council members criticized Burfoot for having the city attorney's office respond to the attack. A city lawyer filed suit on Burfoot's behalf against the website and its registered owner, "disgruntled citizen."
Burfoot said Thursday he eventually will hire a personal lawyer and find out who is behind the anonymous website. "After the election, I plan on giving it my full attention," he said. "I'm pursuing this on my own money."
The site's host, GoDaddy.com, said in a statement the website will go back online if the company receives an exact copy of the new order.
City Attorney Bernard Pishko said Burfoot asked for legal advice after the website appeared. Pishko said Burfoot, as a City Council member, was his client and he was obliged to help. He added that other city employees, although not parties to the lawsuit, were damaged by the accusations.
Burfoot sued only after failing to discover who was behind the campaign, Pishko said. He added that the suit cost taxpayers only his time.
In the suit, Burfoot contends that several sections of the website were untrue, "slanderous and libelous" and would harm his re-election campaign. The suit attached a 30-page printout of the entire site as it appeared April 20.
Poston granted an injunction Wednesday, stating that other legal actions were inadequate in the case. But on Thursday, Poston reconsidered.
He quoted the Virginia Constitution stating that freedom of the press and speech are "among the great bulwarks of liberty."
"In our world, the Internet, just as radio and television, are subsumed in the word 'press' as used in the Constitution," Poston wrote.
He noted that speech concerning the official conduct of public figures is especially protected. Public figures must prove "malicious intent" in published materials. Poston said he was unable to find, without additional information, actual malice in the published material.
Although Burfoot's distaste for the unsigned and unacknowledged material is understandable, Poston wrote, it did not justify closing the website. He added that the Federalist Papers, advocating the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, were published anonymously.
"Historically our Commonwealth has placed a great premium on the ability of the citizens to make reasonable decisions about public matters," Poston wrote.
Pishko disagreed with the judge's decision. "I don't see a First Amendment issue here," he said. "I see it tried and true - you don't have a right to slander."
The decision drew interest from legal advocacy groups and political bloggers.
Jim Hoeft, a conservative blogger on the site bearingdrift.com, praised the judge's reversal.
"Ethical and responsible information online has transformed politics and political accountability, so any threat to restrict that speech is a potential threat to our First Amendment freedoms," said Hoeft, a board member of the Blogs United, an association of about 30 Virginia bloggers.
Speculation about unethical behavior by public figures should be investigated, he said, not brushed aside.
Burfoot said he would push forward with his campaign. "People understand this is an election year," he said. "Most people can see through it."
Three challengers also are running in Ward 3 - Mamie Johnson, William E. "Billy" Mann Jr. and Donna Fay Smith.
Another hearing on the suit is scheduled for July 7 - two months after city elections.
Louis Hansen, (757) 446-2341, louis.hansen@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Hmm!
A vice mayor who doesn't understand freedom of speech and democracy? Seems like he just made his own case to vote against him.
Hmm!
A vice mayor who doesn't understand freedom of speech and democracy? Seems like he just made his own case to vote against him.
RIGHT
Let him get a lawyer and fight his own battles...
RIGHT
Let him get a lawyer and fight his own battles...
Good!
Ordering the shutting down of the website smacks against the 1st Amendment. Mr. Burfoot obviously needs to read it again, and again and again. Maybe then he might understand that ALL Americans have the right of freedom of speech, even those that say, write or post things he doesn't like to see.
To add to final word
Pisko is worried about precisely this spotlight potentially uncovering subjective enforcement, cronyism and other points that are less then ethical. This is where there is a graying . When he says detrimental to the city he means the elected officials not the citizens, he means business as usual. The citizens are supposed to elect officials who work for the best interest of their district. The city attorney is supposed to prosecute those who break the law, but in the city of Norfolk the city Attorney represents only the wishes of the mayor and council and the interests that serve their back-room workings. Look at the history of Pisko and Hall. Where there be supposed issues of public safety you will find they are used to manipulate the public and not hold those accountable who are responsible.
To add to final word
Pisko is worried about precisely this spotlight potentially uncovering subjective enforcement, cronyism and other points that are less then ethical. This is where there is a graying . When he says detrimental to the city he means the elected officials not the citizens, he means business as usual. The citizens are supposed to elect officials who work for the best interest of their district. The city attorney is supposed to prosecute those who break the law, but in the city of Norfolk the city Attorney represents only the wishes of the mayor and council and the interests that serve their back-room workings. Look at the history of Pisko and Hall. Where there be supposed issues of public safety you will find they are used to manipulate the public and not hold those accountable who are responsible.
In response
to those asking for a point by point rebuttal about the website from Burfoot- according to the ruling he was only debating 3 points.
1- burfoot has told business people . . .he has to have a piece and be involved
2- Burfoot spearheaded the closing of the bars, and
3- burfoot pushed for the appointment of Anderson to the NHRA.
Guess the rest, like Anderson not being qualified and falsifying his resume are true. And if true he should be removed immediately.
But how is this slanderous to the whole city or city council as Pishko
mentioned?
Career Politicians All Hit The Same Trip Wire
They become intoxicated with the sense of entitlement and power that comes with being in elected office.
The feeling that the rules apply to others and not to them or their inner circle.
The questionable back room wheeling & dealing makes you wonder if we can handle the truth...
Because...The Truth Hurts
Nevermind what the website
Nevermind what the website says, the scene this public servant has caused and exposed himself to pretty much just blew his chances at reelection. He just pulled a plax...only he shot himself in the FOOT!