Fredda Hollander stands in front of the Sheafe Street building in Boston’s North End. The property was the subject of several stories she wrote that led to a libel lawsuit filed by developer Steven Fustolo.
A developer’s libel suit against a Boston reporter has spurred dozens of North End residents to raise money for her defense.
Fredda Hollander, a former freelance writer for the Regional Review, a free biweekly newspaper that is distributed in the city’s predominantly Italian neighborhood, is facing a lawsuit filed by Steven Fustolo. In an 18-page complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the Burlington-based developer alleges he was defamed in articles that were published two years ago. Today, Hollander and her husband, William Lee, longtime residents of Hanover Street, publish the North End News.
“We want to let Fredda and Bill know how important their paper is for our neighborhood,” said Susan Benveniste, an organizer of Hollander’s Legal Defense Fund. “The lawsuit is an attempt to suppress them and we see this as a First Amendment issue. We are at risk of losing a paper that we depend on.”
On Sunday night, a benefit will be held at the Four Winds Bar & Grill. More than 100 people are expected to attend the $50 event, which will feature entertainment, a silent auction, appetizers and desserts.
At issue are five articles that were published in May and June of 2006 about properties that Fustolo owns on Sheafe, Prince and Snow Hill streets. In one of the stories, the complaint said Hollander misquoted city officials, which “exaggerated their derogatory and defamatory effect and impact Â… portraying Fustolo as having violated the state building code, constructed an illegal roof deck and disregarded the safety of residents.”
In another article, the suit asserts that Hollander selectively quoted individuals to make Fustolo look bad. Another piece said the developer ignored tenants’ rights. According to the complaint the stories also reported on derogatory comments made against Fustolo by attendees of public meetings. In one example, an abutter implied that Fustolo had illegally exceeded the scope of the building permit, the suit said.
A court date has not been set. Hollander’s attorney, Harvey Shapiro, has filed a motion to dismiss the case. Hollander strongly denied the allegations.
“I’m a damn good reporter and what I wrote was accurate,” she said. “In more than a decade of covering neighborhood issues, no one has ever accused me of not quoting them accurately. Steve Fustolo will not stop me from writing the truth. I will not be intimidated or threatened. I will continue doing what I do best, which is write about neighborhood issues and cover things that the daily papers don’t cover.”
While Hollander declined to specify how much she has spent on legal fees, she said it is five figures. Her attorney said if the case goes to trial it could cost as much as $30,000. Hollander said she was paid between $20 and $40 for each of the Regional Review stories and that the paper lacked libel insurance.
Fustolo did not return a call seeking comment. His attorney, Bruce W. Edmands of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, said he does not speak to reporters about pending litigation.
“I will tell you that we brought the complaint because we felt there was erroneous reporting on the part of Fredda Hollander with respect to what took place at various public meetings and we think it was intentional,” Edmands said.
‘An Absolute Defense’
The suit also names Regional News publisher Phillip D. Orlandella, who also serves as a spokesman for the Massachusetts Port Authority. He declined to comment and would say only that he is no longer named in the suit. Edmands confirmed that Orlandella is no longer part of the lawsuit, but Banker & Tradesman was unable to find any court documents to verify the claim.
Robert Ambrogi, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, a trade group that represents Bay State newspapers, said not many lawsuits against reporters ever reach trial and fewer win.
“Truth is an absolute defense against libel,” he said. “If the reporter was accurate and truthful, then the plaintiff is not likely to succeed. If the reporting is truthful, a reporter can’t be held responsible for defaming someone.”
When asked whether Hollander’s living in the North End creates the appearance that she cannot be impartial about development projects in the closely knit neighborhood, Ambrogi said residency should not preclude her from reporting on issues that affect the area.
“Libel law does not require you to be neutral,” he said. “It does prevent you from printing falsehoods, but as long as you are reporting truthfully the fact that you have a stake in it by living in the neighborhood does not matter. Community activist journalism has a long tradition in this country and there is nothing libelous about it.”
Still, Robert Bertsche, a media lawyer at Prince, Lobel, Glovsky & Tye, said there has been an increasing number of libel cases against Massachusetts’s journalists. “The recent trend has not been great for the media largely because the public does not hold the press in very high esteem,” he said. “The public is our jury, so although the law remains protective of the press, juries are not so sympathetic.”
Bertsche mentioned several recent cases that have gone against reporters, including the $2 million judgment against the Boston Herald and reporter David Wedge. In a libel suit filed in 2005, Judge Ernest Murphy alleged that the newspaper depicted him as soft on crime and insensitive to a 14-year-old rape victim in a series of articles published in 2002. The jury found in favor of Murphy.
“One of the most central roles of the press under the First Amendment is to be able to report on governmental activities,” said Bertsche. “That said, the privilege only applies to substantially fair and accurate accounts of what’s said.”
