Attorney Tarazi and blogger Geller (Photos: Tarazi, Geller)
Ohio attorney Omar Tarazi has settled his lawsuit against Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller. The defamation claim stemmed from Geller’s allegations that Tarazi had ties to terrorists.
Under the terms of the settlement, Geller must delete five posts. No money changes hands.
Both sides are claiming victory – Of course.
In an end to what she termed “litigation jihad,” Geller blogged about the settlement, ”Islamic supremacism has suffered a stunning and well-deserved defeat, and a good, stiff kick in the ass.”
Tarazi was more subdued, blogging, “Pamela Geller finally caved in and agreed to permanently take down all of her defamatory posts regarding me to settle the lawsuit.”
The row came out of the 2009 case of Rifqa Bary, an Ohio girl who ran away from her Muslim parents and converted to Christianity. Tarazi was the attorney for Rifqa Bary’s parents. Bary said that her father had threatened to kill her for apostasy. (Authorities were apparently unable to find any corroboration for Bary’s allegation.) Geller, according to a quote on her site, is the “heroine of the right wing blogosphere.” She is also the executive director of a group called Stop Islamization of America
So, who really won?
Well, for fans of our winner-take-all adversarial system of civil litigation, that’s the shame of settlements. You really can’t say who won. Every time there’s a settlement, both sides can say they’ve reached a favorable outcome. That’s true by definition.
But if you want my outsider opinion, I would say nobody won. In fact, I think they both lost.
Geller is taking down her posts. That means she’s been muzzled. That’s clearly a loss for someone who puts herself out there, according to quotes on her website, as “a paragon of courage and fearlessness” and “an irrepressible firebrand.”
Tarazi, on the other hand, is getting no money out of the suit. The litigation was undoubtedly expensive for him to pursue, and when you ask for $10 million as an opening demand and then walk away with nothing, that’s a defeat in my book.
My reading between the lines is that both sides got tired of pursuing this and agreed to call it off.
In our adversarial system of justice, if everyone gets tired of fighting, that’s not only a loss for both sides, it’s a defeat for the system.
Tarazi said about the settlement, “I am … look[ing] forward to moving on with my life.”
How sad is our litigation system when a lawyer plaintiff wants to move on with his life?