The lawsuit filed in 2020 by Noel Rosenberg, former President of Arisia, Inc., against Crystal Huff alleging defamation is being settled out of court both sides have confirmed to File 770.
Crystal Huff has published the following statement on their website:
I am sorry for any harm my statements may have caused Noel Rosenberg and/or his family. I ask that people familiar with this situation respect my wishes that this matter be left in the past, and that people refrain from discussing it and from using negative language to describe anyone involved. It must be acknowledged that it would be incorrect to characterize Noel’s actions toward me as unlawful.
The statement has also been posted on Twitter and Facebook.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Clickity
“I am sorry for any harm my statements may have caused . . . ”
How mealy-mouthed. Acknowledge that you did do something wrong, or don’t bother to apologize at all. “May” have caused puts all the responsibility on the offended party — if they are thick-skinned, then you haven’t done anything wrong.
“It must be acknowledged that it would be” — passive voice much? Again, own it or don’t bother.
Bill: Your yardstick for measuring an apology doesn’t really apply when it comes to settling lawsuits. It’s clear that “don’t bother’ is not a choice here if Huff wants to settle the case instead of proceeding to a devastatingly expensive trial.
I think if you look at the statement Worldcon 76 published in connection with settling Jon Del Arroz’ suit against them, you will see a pattern — these settlement statements don’t come from a place of real regret, and (as in the case of W76) are intentionally worded to concede as little regret as possible.
Mike–I agree with Bill. If the apology neither comes from the heart nor is worded as if it comes from the heart, it is morally and socially worthless. Until the legal profession learns this, the general public will continue to distrust what they say, particularly on behalf of their clients.
Jeanne Jackson: Have you ever run up tens of thousands in legal fees and contested statements you’ve made of a #MeToo nature in a court trial when the option of making an apology was on the table? Walk a mile in those shoes first.
Bill&Jeanne Jackson: I don’t know (well I have a pretty good idea) how you can read that and think it’s anything other than someone being intimidated.
Many carefully-worded statements have to be read in context, and for this one I believe that context is bullet point (1) of Huff’s original claim: https://crystalhuff.com/2018/10/25/why-im-not-at-arisia-anymore-my-rapist-is-president-again/ (please note there’s discussions of what you might expect given the url). In particular, the bit that starts “The legal definition…”.
Yes, fighting a lawsuit is not just about whether you’re right or wrong. It’s also about whether you can afford to fight it. For those who aren’t rich, fighting it can mean financial ruin.
Bill, it’s likely that the exact wording was worked out between lawyers and publishing it verbatim is required to put the matter to rest. I don’t think there’s any point in analyzing it as if that were not the case.
@Jeanne Jackson:
Eh, of course everyone recognizes that this is a paragraph that went through multiple revisions with multiple lawyers, and every intentionally mealy-mouthed word was carefully chosen to have particular meaning, and not convey anything more than what they were precisely forced to.
Still, it has utility, which is why lawyers will continue to require them: It doesn’t really matter how much she feels it, but her saying it matters, because it lets people who want to ignore her claim do so, and have cover for doing so.
As sad as it is, this outcome seemed reasonably predictable. Calling someone a rapist 30+ times on the same page that explains that you’re aware that he doesn’t actually fit the legal definition of that term kind of made for an uphill battle.
The only part that shocks me is that her original post is still up. Can’t tell if it’s lawyer-fail or not, but I would have expected her to be required either to take the original post down or to post the “legally, he’s not technically a rapist” pseudo-apology at the top of that page.
I posted for two reasons — to comment specifically on the statement (which I shouldn’t have referred to as an “apology”, as it obviously is not one) from Huff, and to make a general point beyond the specifics of this incident.
Regarding first reason —
@Mike Glyer “these settlement statements . . . are intentionally worded to concede as little regret as possible.” Don’t disagree. But at some point, they say so little that they are null and meaningless. I think this one is.
We’ll never know (thank goodness) the details of the negotiation. But presumably, at a minimum, Rosenberg wanted Huff to walk back comments referring to him as a “rapist”. If I were him, this statement would not suffice, and since he was called that publicly, multiple times, it’s surprising to me that anyone in his position would accept this.
@Jake “I don’t know . . . how you can read that and think it’s anything other than someone being intimidated.” I don’t necessarily think intimidation is a bad thing. If you say something that is libelous and (strictly speaking, apparently) untrue, and aren’t willing to back down from it, then maybe an intimidating direction from a judge is appropriate.
You don’t have to read much about the situation to decide that Rosenberg was the worst sort of cad, but even Huff’s statement that you linked to acknowledges that he did not rape her, “rape” having a specific meaning within the law of Massachusetts. And yet she said he did, more than once.
Regarding second reason:
The elements of a good apology have been discussed a number of times on File770 — see, for example, drmauser, which OGH linked to here.
Compare Huff’s statement to what has been called “a good example of the form”, Mary Robinette Kowal’s; or even (as Mike noted) W76’s apology to Del Arroz. MRK’s came across as heartfelt and sincere. W76’s may have been made grudgingly, but at least went through the motions. This statement reads as if Rosenberg’s team forgot to demand approval.
She didn’t say he wasn’t a rapist, she said (paraphrasing) that his actions were not illegal. Surely you of all people would agree that the government does not have the power to define common words, and it’s odd to see you deferring to l’Acadamie Bostons on who gets to be called a rapist in Massachusetts.