The Echo

What follows is why you need us.  Why do we need you, Lauren? How are you going to impact the financial success of that "charming little town" of which you write?

Admittedly, this cautionary tale is self-serving, Self-serving?  Are you also an internet troll guilty of using social media to criticize and critique businesses and those who run them? but it also may signal the happy turning of a corner on the social nastiness and disregard for the truth that has overwhelmed the internet and politics today. Ok, you know you're blowing smoke, right? There will come a time when the Supreme Court takes a case on certiorari that re-affirms the first amendment. You are relying on judge-made law and settlements. This type of law is not constitutional. It relies on precedent, of which settlements don't count.  And given that Amber Antonio's commentary is a matter of constitutional law, this latest effort by business to strong-arm citizens into silence will eventually land in the laps of our Supreme Court Justices. 

The local story starts in Central Florida’s most charming little town, Mount Dora, where businessman Ken Mazik is among the three largest downtown property owners — and not the most popular one. And there you have it.  Mazik has been criticized in his role as a property owner.  The fact that he is among the three largest property owners in Mount Dora conveys upon him the status of public figure.  Public figures, in their capacity of public figures, do not enjoy the same rights of privacy or protection that the common citizen does. He can be slandered and libeled as a public figure. 

Mazik, 77, for years has been a punching bag for residents angry that he has left some commercial property empty, and there’s even been talk of charging a “vacancy tax” — as if an owner doesn’t get to do what he wants with his property in the land of the free. What nonsense. Mazik can buy every store in downtown and board them up if he so desires. Get over it. As horrendous as it sounds, you are correct.  Mazik can buy all of Mount Dora, he certainly has the capital to do so.  For the sake of the residents of Mount Dora, let's hope he doesn't. 

The short version of the story is that resident Amber Antonio repeatedly attacked the reclusive property owner on Facebook, calling him a “crook,” “con artist” and “sicko.” She accused Mazik of corruption and alleged that he “stacked” the council with supporters to get construction of a five-story hotel approved. Crook, con artist, sicko, "stacked" these are all words that can be used to describe a public figure in their public capacity, especially "stacked the council". These are not personal words, and I won't offer any examples for fear of stirring up another Mazik flurry of letters that contain threats to sue. That's the trick to keeping a successful investigative blog going.  Everything must to attributed to an already documented, legitimate source.  As a journalist offering an opinion piece published by the Orlando Sentinel, you opened the door to dig deeper and create a more meaningful conversation that protects those who engage in it - like Antonio.

Never mind that Mazik never has proposed a five-story hotel. That piece of nonsense seems to originated from the keyboard of yet another amateur commentator whose blog declaring itself “news” in 2015 posted a picture of a gleaming reflective glass hotel on downtown property Mazik owns and declared it the “future” of the land. I have to admit that I can't find any reference online to Mazik or MSL wanting to build a hotel. But, I hear there's a great piece of property coming up in 2019 on Lake Jem that might be perfect for a hotel/resort.

Mazik sued Antonio for defamation. Here’s what the obviously stunned resident whined to a Sentinel reporter last week: “I just voiced my own opinion based on things I’ve heard, and it got me in trouble.” Let's reiterate that Antonio made comments about Mazik and MSL in a public figure capacity.  She didn't go after his personal life, didn't address employment, didn't comment about his family.  

Seriously? Do you really think you can spread disparaging rumors without checking their veracity and accuse a person of committing crimes you can’t prove and face no consequences? So many people who venture into the realm of public comment without the sort of training journalists have are shocked when it comes back to bite them.  And that's the problem with journalists writing commentary.  Public Comment is just that and it's a guaranteed right. You cannot tell me that had you called Mazik a "crook" journalistic protections would apply to you.  What protects you is that you write about people in their role as public figures.  That is where your protection lies. Members of the audience are entitled to the same as statutes and case law that govern defamation put the burden of proving defamation on the plaintiff and not the defendant.  The reasoning behind this is that we are a democracy and conversation and discussion, good, bad, or indifferent, is inherent to the success of a democracy.  If Mazik wants a dictatorship, he best heed your advice and purchase all of Mount Dora.  

They cling to the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. Of course, you can say what you want, but as reporters well know, you’d better be able to prove you’re right. Welcome to the grown-up world of adults where everyone is responsible for what they say or write. It might be best for everyone if the self-described “40-year-old housewife” got off the internet and returned to dusting knick-knacks in her living room. Again, journalists should not write public commentary.  You have devolved your argument into a case of "nanny nanny boo boo. I can do it but you can't too." You hurt your own reputation when you demean the subject of your stories.  The real welcome is the field of law and what constitutes defamation of character. Consider the following link a little bit of free professional development: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

Across the country, similar suits are popping up in this era of new ways to get “news,” and those being trashed are winning. For example, an Asheville, N.C., woman is paying $500,000 for implying in a Facebook comment that a woman she had worked with got drunk and caused her child’s death. The child actually died in a gun accident involving a second child. While I don't believe in fake news, as our president does, I do believe in recycled news.  And this paragraph is simply recycled from other articles across the web.  It's a shame you didn't cite them.  It's more shameful that you didn't dig in and find additional cases to prove your theory. 

Businesses such as Mazik’s Main Street Leasing are fighting back against vicious, fake reviews on websites. Jewelers in Massachusetts won $34,500 after a rival business called them “thieves” on Yelp. This is not stare decisis. Wow! You've just equated the Mazik suit with Commerce Wars.  Black's Law help you understand "defamation per se. (1928) A statement that is defamatory in and of itself and is not capable of innocent meaning" as well as "Trade Defamation, (1933) the damaging of a business by a false statement that tends to diminish the reputation of that business." - Black's Law Fifth Pocket Edition, pages 228-229.  This is what occurred when one business call its competition thieves. Antonio's comments don't actually fall within either of these definitions.  If her comments are found to be slander or libel, they are better described by one or two of the many other facets of defamation.  Read Black's Law.  It'll help. 

Antonio has tried to spin this dispute into a David vs. Goliath contest, playing on Mazik’s wealth and her relative powerlessness, but there’s another way to look at things, and it’s this: Mazik, who has contributed heavily to Mount Dora’s civic health over the years, apparently finally got fed up with a decade of trash-talk and decided to strike back. Good for him. Childish. But, I will agree that Mazik and MSL has been very philanthropic within Mount Dora.  That, however, does not prove that Mazik has been defamed.  He carries his own reputation for a reason, for many reasons.  His business lies within his shadow and when it appears to operate as if it is intentionally keeping prime real estate vacant, it certainly does lead to public commentary. And let's set the record straight, Mazik is not a recluse, even at 77.  It's his practice that he will not comment to newspapers.  It dates all the back to his early years in Delaware.  He has always relied on his attorney's to comment for him whilst he hobnobs with the most brilliant local celebrities of the Who's Who of whatever town he resides in. If you are going to defend the man, perhaps you should first perform your journalistic diligence.

Certainly, there’s plenty to criticize Mazik about, if that’s the goal. Some of the facts surrounding his career are bad enough. 

He founded a facility in 1987 in the rural Lake Jem area of Lake County to care for seriously disabled clients. Now it’s being closed because of deaths and injuries that never should have happened. This is the man you are defending. Children died under his care. Children from other states died under his care, his duty. He faked his credentials and created a program that included beating students with a riding crop. This was how he defined therapeutic intervention.  He dunked the heads of children in a dirty, nasty swimming pool.  This was therapy. Random Blows to the head, beating by whiffle bat. And who can forget Pete's room? Again, this is the man, Lauren, that you are defending as being a reclusive property owner. None of these statements jive with being a "reclusive property owner." He is so much more than that.  You can't seriously tell me he has a good reputation or that he hasn't earned a bad one. What Ken Mazik has done is manage to slip and slide under rules and inspections while children died in care, all the while amassing a tremendous wealth.  Do you ever wonder what financed his early properties in Mount Dora? 

The Agency for Persons with Disabilities has stationed an inspector at Carlton Palms around the clock until all the patients can be moved. The deadline is March 2019. Mazik says he hasn’t owned the business since 2009 but still owns the property. Perhaps April 2019 will be the dawning of a new hotel?

In late 2015, the online investigative website Pro Publica wrote reams about Mazik and Carlton Palms, and they’re not getting sued. Neither is the Sentinel, which has harshly criticized some of the Delaware businessman’s ventures. Please don't call him a Delawarean.  We don't want him back.  You keep him.  

Real journalists rarely are sued because they put research into uncovering the truth, and they don’t base stories or columns on rumor. Frankly, it’s a relief to see Mazik sue. Hopefully, the action will send keyboard cowards scurrying for their lives, leaving real journalists as the last man standing. Lauren, you aren't really using an opinion piece to try to legitimize journalism while portraying your readers as ignorant miscreants? From the beginning to the end you have shown US why we don't need YOU.  Yes, we need journalism and reporting.  But, we don't need your kind of journalism. This entire piece has been an exercise in bad journalism.

Lritchie@orlandosentinel.com.