Interestingly, the title in the linked to article by Julia Bingel has been changed in the last 24hrs - the original title used terminology something like "~ sexual assault against female ~". It now reads "Summit County coach pleads guilty to crime against a teenager".
I did wonder if they were opening themselves up to a defamation court case with the original title, given that it appears it was the assault charge that was convicted for and not the sexual misdemeanor charge. There might be a lesson in there somewhere?
Yes, they were opening themselves up to a defamation case. A newspaper stating that Dubina was found guilty of any sexual crimes when he wasn't is indeed defamation. Because truth is an absolute defense against defamation, then they likely believed that they printed something that wasn't truthful.
You can only be guilty of a specific charge in the criminal code. If the cases included other crimes that you were not found guilty (or plead guilty to), then you aren't somewhat guilty of those too just through association. There are some still arguing that this is the case here, and they should equally be mindful of not exposing themselves to liability for defamation.
Furthermore, it's a special type of defamation called "
defamation per se" to say that Dubina was guilty of a sexual crime when he indeed was not. One element of defamation is that the statement itself be defamatory (and not just offensive or displeasing). But statements that pertain to the plaintiff committing a crime or an immoral sexual act are presumed to be defamatory without having to be proved.
There's some gray area here to say what you think may or may not have happened. But to state a defamatory falsehood like "Dubina was convicted of a sexual assault" is not a matter of opinion. That's clearly defamation per se and those who are campaigning against Dubina now should likely steer cleer of something like that.
But to say something like "Dubina wasn't convicted of the original sexual imposition charges, but he pled guilty to a separate assault charge, and therefore that means that he must be treated like a sexual offender regardless and you're stupid to think otherwise" That is likely not actionable since that's a matter of opinon. But it might stray into actionable territory if the law is being misrepresented with arguments like "the law states that you must believe him to be a sex offender."
So just a bit of warning towards those who want to cause some reputational damage to Dubina in this thread. The more you succeed, the more you further your cause, but the bigger the consequences will be if you misrepresent the situation and make an outright falsehood. Reputational damage is the currency of defamation, so to speak, and compensation for the plaintiff is commensurate with the damage done.
