Wynn SCOTUS petition seeks to gut anti-SLAPP laws

Media folk, I think you'll want to pay attention to a case seeking Supreme Court review of a libel action by casino magnate Steve Wynn against the AP.

The Times" Adam Liptak is rather sanguine today (gift article) that the court will continue to uphold Times v. Sullivan because of a passing reference to the landmark decision in a recent case to make a general point. (As he writes, the court in such cases rarely cites precedents it might be inclined to overturn.)

But even if the court is not inclined to use this case to revisit Times v. Sullivan, the petition for cert contains another land mine, a second pleading that gives it another option for review. Wynn's lawyers are going head on in trying to gut state anti- SLAPP laws as unconstitutional under the Seventh Amendment.

The petition (PDF) filed Jan. 31 might have been overlooked in all the recent chaos in D.C. since President Trump's inauguration. And Liptak does not address this head-on attack that, if granted and then upheld, could again open the gates to lawfare designed to chill public discourse through, primarily, defamation complaints now known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

In the petition, Wynn's lawyers argue the court should extend the Constitution's right to a civil jury trial  to the states as a mandate that could plow through the heart of anti-SLAPP laws.

Such laws serve as circuit breakers that allow a judge to determine, in most cases before substantial and costly discovery, that a) the defendant has established by preponderance of evidence that the report or commentary was in good faith on a matter of public concern and b) the plaintiff is unlikely to meet the standard to prevail. Since SLAPP suits generally involve those who can be considered public figures, this invokes the "actual malice" standard of Sullivan.

Commentary is important here because anti-SLAPP protections are not just available to journalists and media orgs. Even more important they are available to anyone who wants to make their views known on matters of public interest but then finds they are targeted by the threat of or by an actual lawsuit.

The point of anti-SLAPP laws is to promote public discourse by short circuiting civil lawfare: the tactic of suing someone and forcing them to face spending thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for legal fees in discovery and, likely, to respond to numerous plaintiff motions. before ever reaching a trial. Many of the laws also require that if a SLAPP lawsuit is dismissed under a defendant's invocation of the anti-SLAPP law, the person or organization that originally sued also must pay some or all of their target's legal fees.

Currently, 35 states have anti-SLAPP laws according to the Institute for Free Speech.

There also continues to be a push for a federal anti-SLAPP law. 

I think the Seventh Amendment argument is a stretch. But as Wynn's petition lays out, some state courts have found that anti-SLAPP laws do run afoul of the Consitution, opening the door for SCOTUS to decide to step in.

One should take nothing for granted.

After all, it wasn't that long ago (see the 1995 Food Lion case) that journalists and media organizations suddenly found themselves dealing with what now is a fairly common practice of trying to plead cases using "alternative torts" formed around assertions of violations of privacy, unfair trade practices, breach of loyalty, trespass and other non-defamation claims where truth is not a defense and the malice standard does not apply. (See also some of Trump's latest creative pleadings in his lawsuit against CBS.)

If the court accepts Wynn's petition and then does extend the Seventh Amendment to the states in the way his lawyers assert it should be, the anti-SLAPP era may quickly become a distant memory. One trusts that media orgs and their supporters, as well as numerous other public interest groups, already are gearing up to request leave to file a volley of amicus briefs, if necessary.

But let's not end there, because Wynn's petition has an extensive discussion as to why SCOTUS should take note of the vastly changed media landscape, summarized in this paragraph:

Sullivan is not equipped to handle the world as it is today—media is no longer controlled by companies that employ legions of factcheckers before publishing anv article. Instead, everyone in the world has the ability to publish any statement with a few keystrokes. And in this
age of clickbait journalism, even those members of the legacy media have resorted to libelous headlines and false reports to generate views. This Court need not further this golden era of lies.

Other courts have started taking notice. An Ohio appeals court, reversing a trial court dismissal of a defanation claim against a Columbus TV station, observed the changing media landscape and wrote: “Frankly, a media outlet has a stronger duty to research the facts in such cases than it did when the Lansdowne case was decided.” (Landsdowne is an important controlling case in Ohio defamation law.)

The Ohio Supreme Court firmly slapped down that tentative walk down the path of changing media realities ("The court of appeals set forth the issue before it, quickly established its holding, and then began pontificating. The majority has now attached jurisprudential significance to bloviation.”) and sent the case back to the appeals court, which allowed things to proceed on other grounds.

(The case is Anderson v. WBNS. I was an expert witness for the plaintiffs at a later stage of the case.)

But there is a steady and growing pressure to have courts take note of the modern media landscape. Some are doing so with varying results. I do not think it unreasonable that more will. Wynn's case gives SCOTUS a chance to decide whether conditions are ripe enough to begin journeying down that path with the potential to radically alter the assumptions under which many journalists and media orgs operate.

I'm not sure we've reached that stage. Legal resistance to such major changes is strong, despite some of the things we have seen come out of the high court recently. And there is the observation that the law tends to lag technology by at least a decade.

But we are close to the end of, if not already well past, that decade. (Facebook, afte all, emerged in 2004, Twitter in 2006 and the iPhone in 2007.)

If journalists and others in the media simply think they can chant "Times v. Sullivan" and "actual malice" as some sort of verbal talismans, they are likely to wake up some day and discover not only has Times v. Sullivan lost its (too often assumed) magical powers, but that the entire legal framework under which they thought they could operate has changed drastically to their, and the public's, detriment.

UPDATE: I highly recommend this piece by Ken White, a leading First Amendment lawyer, that explains the ins and outs of SLAPP cases and why a federal anti-,SLAPP law is needed.

Some thoughts about the Kim Mulkey story

The Kim Mulkey story by the Washington Post's Kent Babb, the kerfuffle leading up to it and the instant reaction to it is probably a good reminder for journalists to operate under the assumption you have even less control over your work than the pitifully small amount you might have thought you had.

I'm kind of amazed by the number of people on Babb's X account calling his piece a "nothingburger" or in other ways disparaging it for not living up to *their* expectations. Or referring to the "hype" over it.

But those expectations weren't set by Babb or the WaPo. Nor was the supposed hype. They did the smart thing and kept their mouths shut after Mulkey's outburst last week.

It was Mulkey who set those expectations with her combative and, frankly, ignorant comments (though arguably smart from a PR standpoint because she was able to provoke these reactions).

Then there are those that begin, "After two years ..." as though that automatically should have resulted in the modern equivalent of "War and Peace." But that's a combination of Mulkey's bluster and a lack of understanding of how things work. I've had many stories that took "years" if you measured by when I started researching them and when I finished. But if you just aggregated the time I spent, it would just be weeks or months.

Babb obviously was not working on only this the entire time. And it does take a long time to contact the numerous sources (probably at least twice as many -- likely three, even four times as many -- as you read about) and try to get some of them to talk. Often, you never see those other people because they are there to make sure what you do see is the right stuff. I used to tell students, you'll never use 90% of what's in your notebook. It's there to make sure the other 10% is exactly right. Babb is a former student of mine*, and I have no hesitation saying this is his M.O.

Besides, don't forget that a lot of this "two years" (Mulkey's words) was because of Mulkey's refusal to talk to Babb. So a careful reporter in those cases takes even more time to back things up.

Sure, I would have liked to have seen a bit more peeling back of her layers and more direct sources. The piece probably could lose a few hundred words. And it's a shame it had to rely so much on printed stuff from Mulkey and others. But it was a well-written, richly developed look into Mulkey and her life that left me knowing a lot more than I knew before.

Babb and the WaPo didn't promise anything else -- because they didn't promise anything at all.

And had this dropped "normally," as many such stories do throughout the year but especially at tournament, Super Bowl, World Series, etc., times, it would probably have gotten a different reception.

As for the USA Today column saying Mulkey never would have been subjected to the same treatment as a man, BS. She is one of the most outspoken, successful, polarizing and, it would seem, feared coaches in basketball -- women's or men's -- today. It's not that she's a woman; it's that she is Kim Mulkey.

And what she is, apparently -- other than obviously being a good coach from the W/L standpoint -- is someone who likes to spout off and bluff, but when her hand is called, folds. https://x.com/sportingnews/status/1774111895055683837?s=20

(*Student, as in he was in my classes and politely nodded while I babbled on. You don't teach someone like Babb. You just try to give them a little guidance and then get out of their way.)

 

AP Photographer Lou Krasky -- A Remembrance

CORRECTS that Lou joined AP in 1968, not 1986.

I'm sad to report today that longtime AP photographer Lou Krasky has died at 86.

Services are Tuesday noon at Shives Funeral Home on Trenholm.

https://www.shivesfuneralhome.com/m/obituaries/Louis-Krasky/MemorialEvents

Lou joined the Columbia, SC, bureau in 1968 and retired in 2004. For nine years as news editor I had the pleasure -- no, the honor -- of working with "Krasky" (a bit of affectionate shorthand from our shared NY City upbringing -- it seems sadly appropriate that this is where I am writing this today).

Lou knew everyone and was warmly greated by governors, senators, and pols of all stripes when he showed up. He also was a journalist in the truest sense with an eye for who was where and what was out of place. The result was that he saved all our bacon more than a few times by helping us grab a tough interview or sidling over and whispering, "Hey, you may want to ..."

He was a master at getting the tough shot and had a list of stringers and a rapport with them and member photographers that any photo agency would have killed for.

He defined the word "dependable." Whether it was coverage of a routine news conference or of Susan Smith; Shannon Faulkner, the first woman at the Citadel; the killing of Michael Jordan's father; the lowering of the Confederate flag at the Statehouse; or numerous hurricanes, Lou always had our backs. I knew I could concentrate on overall coverage and Lou would be transmitting or overseeing transmission of the exactly right photo at the exactly right time.

And, yes, he took pity on me by letting me golf with him.

As former AP colleague Jeffrey Collins said when he texted me the news, "They stopped making them like Lou."

Here is something I wrote when Lou retired in 2004.

https://commonsensej.blogspot.com/2004/10/krasky-has-left-building.html

Newsrooms using AI to make some money off local archives? It's poisible, but ...

 This is interesting. Should newsrooms train chatbots on their own content in an attempt to capture traffic from answering locally oriented questions/research (and some $$ in the process)?

https://rjionline.org/news/building-a-chatbot-trained-on-your-newsrooms-content/

It's an intriguing concept, but I'd suggest that except for the largest legacy newsrooms, one's content is not enough to provide the comprehensiveness (breadth and historical depth) to avoid bias and minimize troubling artifacts. That's especially because we know how bad many "print" newsrooms have been at preserving content and digitizing older materials. Broadcast is even worse.

But a local cooperative where everyone can get a share of the proceeds might work, though we also know hard those have been to put together in recent years.

(And before you ask, I can see big chains trying to do it across their properties, but thats's not the point here, and I actually don't think it would work that well. Do I really want to search across Gannett? Or do I really want to go deep across South Succotash? I'd suggest it's the latter.)

This is where libraries could have a key role as nucleii oi such efforts. But, again, we know how difficult it is to get a buch of like-minded (as in make money) news orgs to cooperate. Throw a nonprofit/governmental org into the mix and it becomes exponentially complicated, with the chances of the for-profit orgs sloughing off stuff on the NP.

Student journalism, statehouse reporting and community news

A couple of interesting things today from the University of Vermont's Center for Community News for faculty involved in running or developing community news projects and especially  those trying to fill the loss of statehouse reporting.

Statehouse reporting report

The decline in statehouse reporting across the US has been well- documented. It's also been documented how damaging this is to public knowledge since it can be argued that what hapoens at state legislatures has far more impact on people than what happens in Congress or at City Hall.

University journalism journalism programs have in some cases stepped in to fill the gap. The University of Vermont's Center for Community News now counts about 20 such programs.

The center has put out a report taking a deep look at such programs. It's worth downloading.

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Center-for-Community-News/pdfs/Final_Statehouse_Report_HK_3.31.2023.pdf

Resources for faculty

There are a couple of interesting community journalism conferences this month https://www.uvm.edu/ccn/events

One focuses on university-sponsored news operations covering statehouses Sept. 28-30 at Missouri.

The other (Sept. 8 online) is aimed at improving the faculty resources page put out by the Center for Community News. You can find the page here. 

 https://www.uvm.edu/ccn/faculty-resources

Refocusing a lede

 In the rush on breaking news, we often get our syntactical feet tangled up. Happens to all of us.

Here's a lede that could use rework.

-- Have police been violating rights only following the investigation?

-- Is the Justice Department the most important thing?

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department has found Louisville police have engaged in a pattern of violating constitutional rights following an investigation prompted by the fatal police shooting of Breonna Taylor.

Perhaps this as one possibility?

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Louisville police have consistently violated constitutional rights, the U.S. Justice Department says after an investigation prompted by the fatal police shooting of Breonna Taylor.

Using a parallel series for more powerful writing

 Whew, the first sentence of this graf in an AP story requires some mental mastication through its 43 words.

Let's dissect how judicious use of parallel elements in series can produce tighter, more powerful writing that most of all is easier on readers.

In the process, true crime enthusiasts, concerned onlookers and many others found the latest subject of their fascination in the yearslong unraveling of a mystery that jurors weighed in a six-week trial that culminated in a deliberation that took less than three hours. Murdaugh, 54, received life in prison at a Friday morning sentencing.

The sentence uses a somewhat parallel structure built around the decreasing time elements, but it's blurred because the time element is obscured or changes form as we go along.

-- yearslong unraveling of a mystery (establishes a form for readers, time-object in a  nice tight phrase)

-- that jurors weighed in a six-week trial (six-week trial keeps the time-object pattern but it's pushed back and obscured by the verbiage in front)

-- that culminated in a deliberation that took less than three hours (reverses the pattern to object-time; might be "less than three hours of deliberation" or "a less than three-hour deliberation,"* but the verbiage still obscures the power of the decreasing time elements).

It might be better formed as a clear series:

In the process, true-crime enthusiasts, concerned onlookers and many others found the latest subject of their fascination in a yearslong unraveling of a mystery, a six-week trial, and less than three hours of jury deliberation. Murdaugh, 54, received life in prison at a Friday morning sentencing.

The very structure itself leads to a culmination, a form of "show," which we know is almost always more powerful that "tell."

That's also 35 words, 20% shorter, 36 if you don't hyphenate "true crime." But I would argue for hyphenation because what's being said is enthuiasts of true crime, not true enthusiasts of crime.

* "A less than three-hour jury deliberation" is a tad shorter, but it does seem a bit forced, and the short-short-longer structure is a long-used one. And the last part allows readers to catch a mental breath before moving on.

The story is at https://apnews.com/article/alex-murdaugh-murder-trial-4f1116609e6c49115f45616121961997

How mosquitoes smell story shows the need for context in science journalism

The numerous stories this week about how some people are mosquito magnets highlight some things that are right with science and science journalism, but some weakness as well.

Let's start with this, which is a release from Rockefeller University. It's dated 10/22, though I'm not sure why since the study (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.07.024) was published in July, unless the site is one of those that perniciously shows you the current date whenever you open it, a very bad practice.

https://scitechdaily.com/unlocking-the-mystery-how-mosquitoes-smell-humans/

The good in it and some of the stories that were generated from it: It illustrates the iterative nature of science, in this case how a researcher, Leslie Vosshall, who has been key to development of one theory (of how mosquitoes "smell" human odors) is not afraid, with new research to say, hey, maybe that's not right.

The not so good: The release, unfortunately, (and as a result, some of the stories) just uses a throw-away graf to mention the post doc researcher, Meg Younger, who was central to the discovery of how mosquitoes smell. (And, as is often the way of the world in science, she is also listed last on the paper, though a note says she and eight other authors contributed equally.)

To NPR's credit (in August), it zeroed in on that researcher and the importance of her work (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/08/18/1118137632/mosquitoes-surprise-researcher-with-their-weird-sense-of-smell).

I don't remember hearing so much about that first paper, which appears to be foundational and provides important context to this week's stories A search limited from 8/1 to 8/30 shows mostly non-trad or very specialized sites on the first SERP, with only NPR and The Atlantic representing mainstream media.

(Search on "mosquitoes smell," open ended with no quote marks.)

Contrast that with this week and another paper in the same journal (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.09.034) from the same lab that is attracting a lot of media attention. AP, the Washington Post, CNN, USA Today, the NY Post, CBS, and Euronews have all turned up at the top of the SERP depending on when I've searched and what search engine.

Granted, the current paper is a lot sexier and more focused on the finding that a particular chemical emitted by humans sends mosquitoes a signal the buffet is open. Even given the science speak, the title of the most recent paper, "Differential mosquito attraction to humans is associated with skin-derived carboxylic acid levels," is more approachable than that of the first paper, "Non canonical odor coding in the mosquito."

But if you read the current crop of stories, you might come away with the sense that if we can just get rid of that chemical (you can't; it's vital to your health) or mask it or somehow modify mosquito genetics, we can solve this.

Problem is, in the current crop of stories you will be hard-pressed to find any sense of iteration, that the July paper laid a critical groundwork and introduces some complications. (That paper, if you read it or the NPR story, basically says the old model scientists had that there is one neuron for every type of smell doesn't work with mosquitoes whose neurons apparently are Swiss Army knives when it comes to picking up smells. Thus, they can adapt.)

The only glancing reference to this at the bottom of the AP story https://apnews.com/article/why-some-people-get-more-mosquito-bites-a221709809aadd0b27a47c4a32c8921b (on which many others were based or just simply relayed) is this:

"The study proved this point: Researchers also did the experiment with mosquitoes whose genes were edited to damage their sense of smell. The bugs still flocked to the same mosquito magnets.

'Mosquitoes are resilient,' Vosshall said. 'They have many backup plans to be able to find us and bite us.'" (Vosshall is the lab head.)

The problem: Even with this buried at the bottom, the lack of more complete iterative context (which should be summarized somewhere higher up even if expanded on here) may leave people thinking solutions are easier than they are.

This provides a good illustration because many of the other variables are controlled for. Both papers were in the same journal, they both come from the same lab, and they both cover aspects of the same topic.

So it would have been nice, I think, to acknowledge the earlier work and Younger's importance to it and put in a graf or two saying how the latest paper advances, expands, modifies, etc , that earlier work, or provide clearer context as to why that earlier work complicates things going forward.

Such things can easily become insipid boilerplate, but if done well can help provide reinforcement that science is iterative, not a wowser "new" all the time.

So it's good to keep in mind when seeing MSM science coverage that with their tendency to be like moths to a flame -- timing, one outlet that everyone follows deciding to pick it up, a better PR effort, etc. -- what seems "new" might not be quite so much when put in context.

Part of this comes from my thesis that some of our covid issues, political and social aside, come from failing to provide that context of what's come before. I think a fair chunk of the public has come to see science as a one-and-done thing (for lack of a better term). That leads to the unrealistic expectation, in covid for instance, of quick answers and miracle cures, and when they aren't forthcoming because things tend not to be absolutes but statistical improvements (i.e., the vaccines don't prevent covid, they increase your chances of not getting it, and if you do, of surviving or avoiding long-term effects), the false impression leaves a big opening for the charlatans.

A bit of backstory on the Vernon Jordan shooting

 With the word today of civil rights leader Vernon Jordan's death (https://apnews.com/article/bill-clinton-vernon-jordan-archive-9ca12262adc98e0d6615c67432b6fdbf ), I thought I'd share a bit of back story on the reporting around the attempt to assassinate him in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where I was working as a reporter in 1980.

Those were heady times, with a lot more access than we have today, but journalism still is about having that mentality that you're going to get the story, whatever it takes.

-----------------------------------

I was deeply involved in covering his shooting in Fort Wayne, for instance breaking results of the police interview of Martha Coleman, the woman he was with. 

 

She had been secreted away, and trying to get any information out of that hermetically sealed environment was, to put it mildly, difficult. We knew she'd been interviewed extensively and possibly given a polygraph. We HAD to get the results. The Times, NY Daily News and what seemed like half the nation's other major media had set up shop in the Journal-Gazette newsroom and were trying to pry out the same info. 

 

I finally told Dana Heupel, the city editor, I thought I could get it. 

 

The Oyster Bar on Calhoun Street was both a cop/prosecutor hangout (back room) and a press bar (front room). We mingled, and the rules of engagement were what happened and was said there stayed there. 

 

But this was different. This wasn't some local scandal, it was international news. 

 

I knew the prosecutor handling the case would be there. He and his wife were, along with another couple. I walked up to the table, made my apologies, flipped a chair around from the next table, looked at him and said, "We need to talk." 

 

Over the next 10 minutes (possibly aided by a drink or two before I arrived), he pretty much told me everything, much of it on the record. I raced back to the newsroom. 

 

The issue then was keeping it secret while I typed the story on deadline on my Selectric with all the prying eyes and ears around. But we managed to get it through the process and onto the front page unnoticed, and it was sweet to see the national corps swear profusely when the paper came out. 

 

The J-G got the drop on the initial story in a twist too. 

 

I had left WPTA-TV as assignment editor not long before. At 2 a.m., the phone rang in our apartment. ABC had my number from the affiliates' news operation directory and was on the line. 

 

What did I know about Jordan's shooting? Hadn't heard about it, but I would scramble, I said. I think I might have forgotten to mention I was now at the paper. I immediately called Dana. His wife answered.

 

"It's Doug Fisher. Sorry to call at this hour. But I need to talk to Dana. It's a big story." 

 

I heard her wake Dana. "Dana. It's Doug. He says he has a big story."

 

"It damn well better be," I heard in the background.

 

A groggy and obviously annoyed Dana comes on the line. 

 

"What is it?" 

 

"Vernon Jordan's been shot." 

 

Pause. 

 

"What?" 

 

"Vernon Jordan, the civil right leader's been shot. At the Marriott." 

 

"Oh, shit. Oh, shit. Oh, shit. Oh, shit." 

 

After that day, we had the "Oh, shit" scale for the importance of a breaking news event. 

 

Little remembered is this was debut weekend of CNN and its first major live effort when President Carter visited Jordan at Parkview Hospital (around the block from where we lived).

 

https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/opinion/harber-cnn-32-years/index.html

Cannot vs. would not comment

Fairly regularly, I see sentences like this in stories:

"Mayor Jane Darby said she cannot comment because the lawsuit is ongoing." (Group sues Edisto Beach after town bans religious worship services from its civic center)

She certainly can comment if she wants to, unless there is a clear policy, law, etc., that prevents her.

And maybe there is. But too often stories say an official said he or she "cannot" comment. Often, a stock phrase that like "because the lawsuit is ongoing" is thrown in - phrases that when you parse them really don't say much.

And that subtly makes us complicit in one of the favorite parlor games of many politicians and too many public officials:  linguistic obfuscation.

She would not comment. It's a conscious decision. We should make clear to readers/users that's the case.

If an official says he or she can't comment, then the conversation should be like this:

Them: I'm sorry, I can't comment on that.

You: Why is that?

Them: It's an ongoing legal case.

You: Yes, but why can't you comment? Is there a policy or is this your decision.

Them: I just don't comment on ongoing cases.

You: OK, then you would not comment. I understand.

If, OTOH, there's this:

You: Yes, but why can't you comment? Is there a policy or is this your decision?

Them: Yes, we have a policy against commenting in such cases.

You: Oh, is that a written policy? Where can I get a copy of it?

Them: Uh ....

Then I'd probably still say the person would not comment and cited a (fill in your governing body) policy against talking about ongoing legal cases. (And you should continue pressing for that policy, just because ...)

If the person were able to produce details of that policy or say it was on the advice of a lawyer, etc., then "can't" is closer to acceptable. But you now know details of why and should tell folks.

And even then, I think I'd favor "would not" with the explanation.

The only times I think "cannot" is clearly called for is when there are legal repercussions if the person talks. So if the mayor says she can't comment because of a judge's gag order or she can't comment because state law says officials can't talk about such and such, then OK.

In most cases, whether to comment is a decision made with free will, which takes "would." Even with a "policy," a person usually is free to decide to ignore it. (All the time we use anonymous sources who are doing just that, don't we? So that little nicety doesn't seem to trouble us.)

"Can't" seldom should be used, and when it is it should always have solid explanation, not just a tossed-off stock phrase, because the subtle but important implication is that the decision is being taken out of the person's hands. If we acquiesce, it provides a veil of plausible deniability. It's a reason pols and public officials like to use it, just as they adore the passive ("mistakes were made").

Our job isn't to provide linguistic cover.


(Usage notes:

- The widely established form is "declined to", not just "declined," comment. You decline something offered to you (another piece of pie, perhaps), but you decline to offer something (in this case, a comment) to someone else. The argument could be that you are declining the chance to comment, shortened to declined comment, but that's really not the sense of the interaction. And why even use that bureaucratic form when "would not" is perfectly fine?

- Avoid "refused" - the connotation has overtones of malice on your part. But if you catch his or her honor carting away a bag of money and you ask what's up and all you get is stony silence, then, yeah, "refused" might fit the bill.)