FORCES International - The answer of Mr. John Banzhaf, III, Esq. to the demand letter of Mr. Kjono - Letter dated Friday, December 12, 1997
*** Internet Posting Copy ***
Friday, December 12, 1997
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT REQUESTED
CONFIDENTIAL
Company name (withheld)
Address: (withheld)
Washington
Mr. Norman E. Kjono:
Dear Mr. Kjono:
This responds to your letter dated November 29, 1997.
In that letter you complain that, more than 14 months ago, ASH posted on its Internet web site
a brief excerpt from a newspaper review of a novel. In this novel persons apparently are singled
out to be poisoned by cyanide solely because they are smokers.
You suggest that one or more "mentally deficient" (sic) persons might be motivated by reading
the novel itself and/or the published book review to themselves attempt to kill smokers, apparently
including yourself.
Going even further, you write that "it is inescapable that the purpose of promoting the book, in
the form as chosen for the ASH website, could only be to put persons who smoke in fear of lethal
cyanide poisoning should they continue to consume tobacco products"; that "as a lawful consumer
of legal tobacco products I now live in a constant state of fear for my personal safety"; that ASH's
actions in posting a brief book review from a conservative newspaper on its website by itself
constitutes "domestic terrorism"; that "this terrorism is actively supported by President Clinton."
The purpose of this letter is to make the record clear that you are on notice of various facts
should you decide to undertake any of the actions regarding ASH you suggest or allude to in your
letter.
Page 2
1. The novel to which you refer was also reviewed by a large number of responsible newspapers
and media outlets including -- but not necessarily limited to -- the Allentown Morning Call, Bergen
County Record, Boston Herald, Financial Post, Greensboro News & Record, Jewish Exponent,
Kansas City Star, New York Times Company, Philadelphia Inquirer, Publishers Weekly, Seattle
Times, and the Northern New Jersey Record. Each presumably has an individual readership far
larger than ASH's Internet web site, and therefore a greater possibility of being read by deranged
persons.
2. The same novel was also featured and/or discussed on a number of other Internet web sites
including those with both anti-smoking and pro-smoking points os view. The large number of
published books reviews strongly suggests that the novel was also heavily promoted by its
publisher by using techniques well known in that industry (e.g., radio and TV appearances, book
signings, etc.), as well as by individual book stores and other types of book sellers (e.g., mail
order, Internet sales, etc.). In short, whatever exposure the novel may have received on ASH's
Internet web site is minuscule to the point of being de minimis when compared with the totality
of its exposure to the general public.
3. On its Internet web site ASH has published many hundreds if not thousands of individual news
related to smoking. These have included information about other published books (both fiction and
nonfiction), movies, television programs, and other publications.
4. What ASH published on its Internet web page more than a year ago with regard to this novel
was a brief four-paragraph excerpt from a short book review which appeared in a conservative
newspaper. It was [receded only by an even briefer one-paragraph factual introduction merely
stating the overall plot of the book. There is nothing whatsoever in that particular web page -- or,
indeed, on any page of ASH's overall website -- which applauds, condones, approves, praises,
encourages, or expresses directly or indirectly any support for the actions taken or the opinions
expressed in the book. Indeed, the word "protagonist" was carefully chosen for the title of the web
page to avoid using arguably-praiseworthy words like "hero" or "leading man" to describe the
principal character involved in this novel.
5. Moreover, ASH has never, on its Internet web site or in its many other publications and
statements, condoned, approved, praised, applauded, or
Page 3
otherwise expressed any support
whatsoever for any illegal acts of violence for any reason against any person, even those directly
responsible for the sale and promotion of tobacco products to children. ASH has also repeatedly
stated that it is antismokING, not antismokER.
6. As you no doubt know, there have been many fictional books, movies, and plays which have
portrayed and/or described criminal acts, often in a favourable light. In a few rare cases there may
have been people encouraged to re-enact and carry out these fictional actions in real life. Yet in
every one of these situations in which law suits seeking to impose legal liability were brought, the
courts have refused to impose civil liability, even where such a result might seem to be
reasonably foreseeable, much less any criminal liability of the type which you have suggested by
your filing of a complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
7. Thus it seems clear that any suggestion that the publication on the entire book -- much less
the mere reprinting of a portion of a brief book review of the novel from a major responsible
newspaper -- would constitute a criminal violation would be regarded as frivolous and possible
malicious.
8. As any reasonable person knows, the mere publishing of information about an actual event --
or even about a work of fiction -- does not constitute endorsement of the activity or of the view
expressed. For example, ASH's earlier reporting on its Internet web page about John Grisham's
book "The Runaway Jury" certainly does not constitute endorsement, encouragement, or support
for jury tampering in lawsuits against tobacco companies.
9. It is also very clear that none of the alleged acts of violence against smokers which you
mention in your letter seem to have any resemblance whatsoever to the plot of the instant novel.
Thus even assuming that a few books or movies might have led to copycat criminal acts in other
circumstances -- although clearly not to any criminal or civil liability for those associated with
these works -- no similar claim can be made about the instant book and its plot.
10 .This conclusion is strengthened by the long passage of time since the book in question was
first published, and from the date when ASH featured a brief excerpt from a newspaper review
of the book on its website. In the more than fourteen months since that book review was posted
on ASH's web page,
Page 4
there have -- to my knowledge -- been no incidents based upon the plot (the
poisoning of cigarette packs for sale) set forth in the book. Indeed, although you cite a number
of alleged instances of violence against smokers, none bears the slightest resemblance to the
fictional incidents portrayed in the work of fiction.
11. For all these reasons, I respectfully suggest that your assertions that you live in a "constant
state of fear for my personal safety," that you experience "extreme alarm and concern," that
ASH's actions in posting a brief book review from a conservative newspaper constituted "domestic
terrorism," that "this terrorism is actively supported by President Clinton," etc. are likely to be
regarded as frivolous and malicious -- if not absolutely preposterous -- by any person reviewing
them. This is especially true since more than fourteen months have passed since information
about the book was provided to the public by ASH and by many media outlets, and during that
entire time not a single copycat incident based upon the plot of the fictional work seems to have
occurred.
12. With regard to your suggestion that ASH withdraw from its website the reprints of excerpts
of a published book review about the novel, your request is rejected for all the reasons stated
above. Moreover, your own inspection of ASH's Internet web site must have revealed that the
item has not been posted on ASH's main page [ash.org] for well over a year since the matter is
no longer timely or newsworthy. Indeed, I strongly suspect that -- after more than a year -- these
books are no longer even stocked in book stores. Therefore the particular page in question is
likely to be found only by someone who very carefully uses an Internet "search engine" and
enters key words like the title or author of the book; in other words, someone who is already
aware of it.
13. With regard to your suggestion that ASH publish on its web site any statement to the effect
that it or those associated with it do not condone violence against persons because of their
smoking behaviour, your request is also rejected because ASH has never made any statements
of support for such violence. You may -- if you wish, of course -- quote from this letter in any
article, Op-Ed piece, or letter to the editor you care to write concerning this topic. You may also
cause it to be reprinted on other Internet web pages with which you may be associated. One
presumes that you are capable of using sufficient key words on any such web page so that
anyone who happens to use the Internet search engine to locate the ASH page of which you
complain will also be lead to the new
Page 5
one where you have placed whatever information you desire
regarding the same topic, including ASH's views.
14. However, to avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding, please understand that should
you take any further actions -- such as those apparently alluded in your letter -- which may
adversely affect ASH, we will not hesitate to take the type of legal action against you and/or your
company we have taken in the past with regard to others who have taken similar steps. Indeed,
I most respectfully suggest that some of the actions apparently alluded to in your letter -- including
the filing of malicious complaints or other legal documents, etc. -- may give raise to civil liability
for defamation, false light, tortious interference with existing or prospective contractual advantage,
unlawful harassment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, prima facile tort, etc. Indeed, the
filing of a knowingly false or frivolous complaint may even give raise to criminal liability.
Yours truly,
(signature)
John Banzhaf III, Esq.
Executive Director and Chief Counsel