I have some pretty bad news and some really bad news. First the pretty bad news: I have not yet completed the follow-up to my recent article ?Religious discrimination at the University of Georgia.? I know that the article was due this week and I am truly sorry. The delay has something to do with the really bad news: Mike Adams, Townhall.com, and a few other sites that reprint my column have been threatened with a lawsuit by newly elected North Carolina State Senator Julia Boseman.
On November 9th, Boseman threatened us with a lawsuit for defamation of character as a result of my October 14th article entitled: ?If your brother is the father of your child?? According to Boseman?s attorney, the following line from the editorial is false and defamatory: ?Recently, (Julia Boseman) and her ?domestic partner? had a baby, which was made possible by a sperm donation from her biological brother.? Instead, the attorney insists that the sperm donation came from a sperm bank.
Boseman has made it clear that a defamation suit can be avoided if we will, among other things, print a retraction. Of course, you will recall that I sent Ms. Boseman an email, after I called her secretary, and also after I left a detailed message on Boseman?s voice mail, asking her to read the article and correct any factual errors. Of course, that was all before the article was printed.
Since she declined to proof-read the article, you are probably of the opinion that this misunderstanding is Ms. Boseman?s fault, not ours. You are also probably reluctant to run a retraction.
But, Jon, I hold a different view of the situation. I think that we should do the right thing and print a retraction immediately. The aforementioned ?defamatory? line should be changed to read: ?Recently, (Julia Boseman) and her ?domestic partner? had a baby, which was made possible by a sperm donation from a total stranger.?
In order to make the article consistent, we should change the title of the previous editorial from ?If your brother is the father of your child?? to ?If you don?t know the father of your child?? Readers of the article will still consider the line to be sufficiently Foxworthy-esque, and, hence, consistent with the theme of the article. In fact, I wish that Julia would have called me back before the article was printed. I really like the corrected version better.
Finally, Jon, I want you to go back and change the first line of the closing paragraph of my October 14th editorial, which presently reads as follows: ?I don?t want to challenge Julia Boseman?s right to use her brother?s sperm to ?father? her child.?
Please change it to read: ?I don?t want to challenge Julia Boseman?s right to use a stranger?s sperm to ?father? her child.?
Boseman?s attorney has also demanded that I issue a public apology for my ?defamatory? remarks. I will submit that apology later this week. Like all of my other columns, it will come from the bottom of my heart, devoid of any sarcasm whatsoever.
But my next article on Julia Boseman will also contain some interesting new information. I expect the facts to show Julia Boseman?s real motivation for threatening me with a lawsuit. I hope she doesn?t expect another chance to fact check my apology.
I?m not in such a nice mood anymore. As we say in Texas, someone just ticked off the wrong cowboy.