Retired Mobile pastor falsely tied to SBC abuser list by local news outlet

…and I never sued anyone in my life, but I would sue for libel. Don’t know if I’d win because of freedom of the press and all, but this was lazy reporting. In my profession, if I make a “mistake”, intent does not free me of liability.

This is a problem with a list that was entirely forseeable. Now a man’s life is greatly affected, if not ruined, because a list was published. A church is greatly harmed. Is this really what we want?

You generally have to prove that people knowingly did something; Rev. Brown does not have easy access to the press, so he wouldn’t have to prove actual malice, but he would have to prove the reporter knew it was false, but published it nonetheless.

So here you’ve got a couple of things working against a libel lawsuit. Hard to prove malice, easy to indicate a mistake, plus the guy is 80 and will not be candidating for a new job anytime soon. It’s harder to prove the actual harm.

Now to reputation, yes, but that can be dealt with with a simple retraction in the paper. Given the significance of the accusation, it’s something that ought to be somewhere between the original article and page 1 (i.e. not buried in the text, very obvious), but it’s something where a simple, public apology ought to be sufficient.

The one exception to this is if someone decided to hurt him physically because they thought he was a pervert. At this point, though, a public apology ought to be sufficient.

That noted, YES, it does indicate why you want to have EXTREME precautions if you decide to have this kind of list.

A good example of the potential problems with these lists. Many people will not remember the correction, only the accusation/association. I think the SBC list which included “alleged” abusers has the potential to be unfair to people who are accused then later found not guilty. In our rush to correct past negligence about sexual abuse, people will over-react and tarnish reputations beyond repair.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/southern-baptist-trample-rights-of-the-acc…

On May 26, the convention made public an initial list of people it regards as credibly accused of sex abuse. Gene Besen, a lawyer for the convention, had urged publication of the document, noting that “promptly releasing that list is in our best interest.” This is a first step toward fulfilling one of the report’s central recommendations: the creation of an “offender information system,” an online database that would include people who have been “credibly accused” of sex abuse and those who have “aided and abetted” the credibly accused by failing to fire them.

The report defines as credible any accusation that is “not manifestly false or frivolous.” Under this standard, many false accusations would be deemed credible, including the one made by Potiphar’s wife.

Is this really what we want?

First off, it seems like the news media outlet is the one that screwed up here by misidentifying the wrong person. The list is correct.

Second, what is a better choice here? Should churches stand by idly while rapists and abusers navigate from place to place? I’m very sympathetic to the wrong man, but is it better than a Daryl Gilyard wreaking havoc in dozens of churches over years or decades?

I’m asking a rhetorical question here. What is the best action to take?

[Jay]

I’m asking a rhetorical question here. What is the best action to take?

The best course of action is make it public. This story highlights the hesitancy amongst the SBC leadership around this both to the public, but also during the Guidewell process. There are pastors with the same names in the same cities. So it is definitely challenging, although that doesn’t remove the need to do something.

What is the best action to take?

Teach pastors and churches to do their research before hiring someone. Yes, the news media screwed up, but that’s little comfort to an 80 year old man whose reputation is damaged and perhaps ruined. It is of little use to a church whose name has now been dragged through the mud. To quote the old politician, “Where does he go to get his reputation back?”

If this guy was convicted, the information was available on a background check. That’s what needed to happen.

IMO, this compounds the problem. It doesn’t help. All the SBC had to do was say, “We have a list. Check with us before you hire someone.”

A perfectly legitimate part of the pastoral hiring process is to contact the candidate’s last church and ask some questions. “Has he been accused of anything inappropriate we should know about”, “Would you hire him again (in the case of a pastor leaving a church on their own.” It seems that any sexual accusation is going to be hard to clear the “beyond reproach” threshold.