You may recall that part of the settlement agreement to the Harlan Ellison/Gary Groth lawsuit involved Ellison posting to his website a 500-word statement from Groth. Or, to be more specific:
Plaintiff shall permit Defendants to post a statement not to exceed 500 words on Plaintiff’s web site www.harlanellison.com for a period of 30 days, commencing within 5 business days of the execution of this Agreement, for the purpose of rebutting statements made by Plaintiff that accused Mr. Groth of embezzling funds in the Fleisher litigation and soliciting contributions to the Fantagraphics Defense Fund under false pretenses, and that likened Mr. Groth to a child molester (the “Defendants’ Rebuttal Statement”). … Plaintiff shall ensure that the Defendants’ Rebuttal Statement is posted in its entirety on his web site, and shall not edit or otherwise alter the content of the Defendants’ Rebuttal Statement.
This morning Dirk pointed out that Groth’s statement was available in the latest version of the settlement agreement that The Comics Journal has posted on its website … you can find it here under “Update 8.” After opening the PDF, scroll down to the last couple of pages to read Groth’s statement.
Fantagraphics also notes that the statement was sent to Ellison’s lawyer on Aug. 20; “… despite the fact that the Settlement Agreement stipulated that it be posted on his web site for 30 days, it has not yet been posted — two weeks later.”
UPDATE: Rich Johnston posted Ellison’s response to why Groth’s rebuttal hasn’t been posted on his website yet in our comments section.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
If you do not cover them will they go away?
September 6th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I’d rather lock the both of them in a room with Fleisher. For an hour.
Just to see what happens.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Ellison’s lawyer has replied stating:
[Regarding Defendants' publication of Gary Groth's "rebuttal" statement on Fantagraphics' website]
Dear All:
Gary Groth has published his “rebuttal” statement referred to in the recent settlement agreement between Harlan Ellison and the Fantagraphics Defendants in the above referenced case. The settlement agreement stated that Mr. Ellison would permit the Defendants to post on Mr. Ellison’s website a 500 word rebuttal to: “statements made by Plaintiff that accused Mr. Groth of embezzling funds in the Fleischer case … soliciting … funds under false pretenses …” and “statements which likened Mr. Groth to a child molester.” See Settlement Agreement. Page 4, Paragraph 6.
The grant of this short rebuttal was not an opportunity to grandstand on the First Amendment — Fantagraphics’ supposed knightly championing of it and Mr. Ellison’s alleged disregard of it — thereby perpetuating the one-upsmanship on the topic, as to who believes in the First Amendment more, etcetera. In our opinion, the Defendants overreached both the letter and the spirit of the settlement agreement. It was precisely this sort of sniping Mr. Ellison intended to quell as a by-product of the main thrust of this case, which was to correct the record.
The parties had not yet privately resolved their disagreement on whether Mr. Groth’s “rebuttal” was an overreaching First Amendment screed or within the limited scope of the settlement agreement. The Defendants published it anyway.
Regarding the substance of the rebuttal: It is important to point out that at the time Mr. Groth’s objections to the two statements were made known to Ellison, Ellison took steps to investigate, correct, retract and even apologize for any inaccuracy. We believe these are the appropriate steps to take, both legally and morally, when confronted with a legitimate concern about the veracity of a public statement. As to the prior hyperbole that both sides have engaged in, this settlement agreement was to put an end to it once and for all.
In the case of Ellison v. Fantagraphics et al., the settlement agreement speaks for itself on the subject and no further comment need be made.
Mr. Ellison considers the matter closed.
John H. Carmichael
counsel for Harlan Ellison
September 7th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Rich: You’ve GOT to track down Fleisher and see what he thinks of all this….
September 7th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Frankly, I think Ellison’s got an arguable point. I’m not saying he’s necessarily *right*, just that his position is one that a reasonable person could honestly hold. The settlement agreement said that Groth could produce a statement rebutting three specific allegations. His statement unquestionably goes beyond that. There’s room for legitimate dispute as to whether it goes too far.
(Although to be honest, my sympathy is with Ellison on this narrow point. He signed up to run a rebuttal of three specific allegations; Groth has produced a rant about his wider grievances. I don’t think that’s really in the spirit of the agreement, even if he is within the letter of his rights.)
September 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Hmm, I get the feeling that Mr Ellison’s refusal to publish Mr Groth’s reply only serves to bolster Groth’s point about Ellison’s (lack of) commitment to free speech. This entire suit has done far more damage to Ellison than Groth’s original comments ever could have done.