Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller Sues to Find Out Who Said Mean Things About Him on Wikipedia   - 2,727 Views, 3 Comments

In the case of the entry for Fuzzy Zoeller, someone had written “Zoeller went public with his alcoholism and prescription drug addiction, explaining that at the time he made those statements, he was “in the process of polishing off a fifth of Jack (Daniels) after popping a handful of vicodin pills”. He further detailed the violent nature of his disease, recalling how he’d viciously beat his wife Dianne and their four children while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also admitted feigning a ruptured spinal disc in 1985 so as to be prescribed a multitude of prescription medication. He sought professional help and mended his fractured familial relationships. In May 2006, Zoeller said in an interview with Golf Digest magazine that he hadn’t beaten his wife in nearly five years.”

Now, true or not, and Zoeller staunchly maintains that it is not true - and we have no reason to disbelieve him - suing to find out who said it is probably not the smartest thing to have done. For one thing, thousands if not millions more people - people who would never normally read Wikipedia - will learn about the ‘allegations’ because of the lawsuit. For another, Zoeller is unable to sue Wikipedia directly, because Wikipedia is protected by the law (and, by the way, Wikipedia has already removed that entry). So instead of leaving it and walking away, or perhaps making a public statement, Zoeller is suing the company where the computer used to add the Wikipedia entry is located. That organization is the Miami-based consulting firm of Josef Silny & Associates, presumably an innocent third-party themselves.

Said Fuzzy Zoeller’s attorney, Scott Sheftall, “Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the information. The Zoeller family wants to take a stand to put a stop to this. Otherwise, we’re all just victims of the Internet vandals out there. They ought not to be able to act with impunity.”

Funny, for a guy who takes stock in what the Court says, Sheftall seems to have a glaring blind spot for what the Court said in that famous case of Hustler versus Falwell: that the First Amendment mandates that public figures (and Zoeller certainly is a public figure) must prove that a false public statement (such as, arguably, the Wikipedia entry) “was made with actual malice, or with knowledge that the statement was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true.” Further a reasonable person would have to be able to believe that it was true (and because we have told you that it is not true, and have only quoted the offending Wikipedia entry for purposes of context, our own repetition of that untruth fails that test).

And, as mentioned above, Wikipedia has already removed the offending entry, voluntarily, further leading one to wonder why Zoeller is pursuing the author through the courts.

Remember, Fuzzy , sticks and stones may break your bones, but filing a spite lawsuit can only hurt you.