What Really Happened: 2016 Racine, WI Substitute Teacher Case
Keep up to date on the latest in what’s happening with the Justin Beaton Case Historical Preservation. Please feel free to direct any inquiries to contact@jbchp.org.
Several news outlets have retracted their stories after new information came to light in the 2016 case of Racine Sub who was exaggeratedly charged and accused. One news outlet even debuted a program that seeks to help people who were the subjects of outdated, inaccurate news coverage. This highlights the importance of responsible journalism and […]
BREAKING: News Outlets Remove Justin Beaton Articles Read More »
UPDATE: Prepare yourselves for a gripping exposé that will leave you questioning the very foundations of justice. In the captivating saga of the Justin Beaton teacher case, it became glaringly apparent that our society has been fed mere snippets of inaccurate information. Brace yourselves as we dig deep into the shadows, unraveling secrets untold and
UPDATE: Shedding Light on New Facts in Justin Beaton Case Read More »
Unveiling the untold truth behind one of the most sensational teacher controversies in recent memory – brace yourselves for an eye-opening journey into the Justin Beaton case. In 2016, headlines were ablaze with scandalous accusations, but what if we told you that the public never truly heard the full story? Prepare to delve beyond the
Original Public Narrative Wrong in Racine Sub’s Case Read More »
____________________________
Despite the claim being rooted solely in negligence relating to the refusal to remove articles containing inaccurate narratives despite contradictory evidence, the Appellate Court sadly still addressed the claim as though it were defamation and dismissed the suit on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run. The legal action argued that the statute of limitations began the first instance of refusal to remove the articles, not when they were first published, but the Appellate Court disagreed.
It is most telling, however, that neither court ever once affirmed that the “set of facts” or version of events portrayed in the media was accurate, with the Circuit Court even outrightly rejecting this premise (see Circuit Court Result). This is ironic because whether or not something is factual is all that should matter in journalism and in a court of law, but sadly, the case never got to the point where a potential jury could evaluate the evidence. Due to how the laws are set up, it is extremely difficult to succeed in legal action regarding media companies, but that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t make the effort—attempts made to try and bring more accountability and transparency to an institution are never a bad thing. Since the next step would have been the Supreme Court, this is where the litigation phase ended, but Justin remains committed to attempting to get the articles removed through diligent, respectful communication attempts.
A river cuts through a rock not because of its power, but because of its persistence.” – James N. Watkins
____________________________
Despite the fact that all that should matter in journalism is what’s actually true or false, it was still argued that what was true or false was not relevant—which was disheartening.
____________________________
Any briefs, pleadings, or other documents and filings associated with the case are available to view by request. Please email contact@jbchp.org to submit an inquiry. The evidence exhibits from the case are available here.
____________________________
Big Win in Circuit Court
By God’s grace, Justin was able to defeat one of the attempted defenses. The attempt was to claim that there was no duty of care owed because nothing reported was false, but the Circuit Judge rejected this. He responded by implying that the news accounts were not the default set of facts as was being claimed. He instead asserted that what was true and what wasn’t hadn’t yet been established by the Court, thereby rejecting the defense altogether.
The Circuit Court, However, Ultimately Dismissed the Case
Overall, however, the Circuit Court unfortunately addressed Justin’s claim as though it were rooted in defamation when it was not. It was, in fact, rooted solely in the negligent act of refusing to remove articles containing inaccurate narratives after contradicting credible evidence had been shown. The Court also ruled that the statute of limitations had expired, but the initial act of refusal had, in fact, occurred within the statute of limitation time period (and it would have been extremely difficult to file while still on probation for a variety of reasons). The Court, incorrectly addressing the claim as defamation, set the statute of limitations all the way back to when the articles were first published. A prominent civil rights attorney that Justin knows initially agreed and felt that the law was misapplied.
Grounds for Appeal
Based on how U.S. law is set up, it is virtually impossible to be successful in legal action concerning the media as the accountability for journalistic institutions is vague and ambiguous under the guise of “Freedom of the Press.” To be fair, there are many who work in media who do their jobs with integrity and accountability, but there are certainly some who use surreptitious strategies to avoid legal liability. This might include slanting stories by intentionally leaving out inconvenient or politically incorrect facts, context, perspective, or proportion to give an incomplete story, which makes it very hard to be successful in a claim concerning their actions because they did not “break the law.” No defamation is committed, but the whole story is not told, so the story is not true. It is a gray area of law.
Despite a valiant effort and despite the big win of the judge actually rejecting one of the attempted defenses, the Circuit Court initially dismissed Justin’s case. This was cause for an appeal as he didn’t want to give up.
____________________________
Any briefs, pleadings, or other documents and filings associated with the case are available to view by request. Please email contact@jbchp.org to submit an inquiry. The evidence exhibits from the case are available here.