Posted on 10/24/2003 10:14:40 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
Edited on 10/24/2003 12:02:17 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Why do you talk about Florida Law, then about a federal subpoena?
Oh, but how they would hate the discovery! I'd like to start with complete access to Terri's medical records.
Can you imagine how bad we would Freep them for doing that??
The problem the gov would have with screwing with the FR is that we support the Good Guys on the Right, the people who love us hold the keys (did you see Florida Legislature??) So if the dems and socialist get mad at us I say we give them the full monty.
Truth is always a defense. That's because one of the things a plaintiff must prove is that it was a false statement. So, check the veracity of any information you publish on the Internet which may be damaging to the reputation of others.
Quote testimony from judicial or legislative proceedings.
Express your opinions pertaining to ongoing debates or public issues without resorting to undisclosed defamatory facts. If you disagree with someone, don't attack him/her personally. Simply disagree without becoming personally vicious and avoid ridiculing one personally.
If you criticize or poke fun at a public figure make sure that it is not done with Malice. That means you do not have knowledge of the falsity of what you are writing and you didn't totally disregard the truth.
Don't relay damaging information created by others without verifying the facts supporting it. It's not a defense that you are simply relaying someone else's Libelous statement because merely publishing a third party's Libel will make you guilty of Libel too.
If you are in the business of relaying information from others which could be Libelous, consider getting insurance coverage for Libel or setting up an asset protection entity such as a corporation or Limited Liability Company to publish your newsletter or bulletin board.
CAN I SUE SOMEONE WHO SAYS OR WRITES SOMETHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ME?
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.
WHAT ARE THE DEFENSES TO A LIBEL CLAIM?
There are three main defenses to a libel claim (other than asserting that it never happened or that you were never involved):
The first is claiming, and proving, that the statement was privileged (and thus not public). Only certain professions (doctors, lawyers, psychologists), or individuals (chiefly your spouse) can maintain that privilege; and if any non-privileged third party was part of the communication, the privilege is broken. (Employees of a professional are only partially covered, to the extent that you needed to use them to contact the professional. Don't expect to tell your deepest, darkest secret to your attorney's secretary, and maintain that privilege.)
The second defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement is true, for "truth is an absolute defense".
The third defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement was an opinion, not an assertion of a fact. Since this last defense is only as good as the weakest or worst, but still reasonable, misinterpretation, it's not one you really want to rely on. There's a world of difference between saying "I think he's a crook," and "he's a crook". Especially if a third party might inadvertently leave out the first two words when passing your message on.
CAN I SUE SOMEONE WHO SAYS OR WRITES SOMETHING DEFAMATORY ABOUT ME?
In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.
Know the law and sleep easy my fellow Freepers. California State Court has ruled 99.9% of what is posted here as protected speech. Here is a snippet from Barrett vs. Rosenthal:
However, as Rosenthal points out, the boundaries of permissible public discourse have evolved significantly in the last half century and as her Reply aptly summarizes it:
"Although it may have been actionable to call someone a 'hypocrite' in 1916, or an 'old witch in 1955 (Opp. 8:24-9:5), today calling someone a 'thief" and a 'liar' in a public debate has been held to be constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole. (Rosenaur V. Sclzerer (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 280.)"
The conclusion that Rosenthal's statements discussed above are protected opinion or rhetoric is also supported by the forum and context in which the statements were made, that is, in the "the general cacophony of an Internet" newsgroup, "part of an on-going free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" about health issues, where the "the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents." (Global Telemedia International v. Doe 1 aka PUSTEDAGAIN4O (C.D.Cal. 2001) 132 E.Snpp.2d E26l, 1267, A269-1270 [holding critical comments about Plaintiff in Internet chat-room, including that it "screwed" investors out of their money and lied to them, to be non-actionable opinion and rhetoric. Also see Gregori' v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.Sd 596, 601: "[Where potentially defamatory statements are published in a public debate, ... or in another setting in which the audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions by use of epithets, fiery' rhetoric or hyperbole, language which generally might be considered as statements of fact may well assume the character of statements of opinion.")
Hi Micheal! You're a scumbag of the lowest form. So sue me!
78 posted on 10/24/2003 4:53 AM EDT by AmericaUnited
LOL.
Opinions, as the saying goes, are like rectums, evrybody has one.
What Palpatine is attemtpting to do here is rectotmy on a grand scale.
Could he be sued for practicing proctology absent a license?
The determination in the civil trial he lost would serve as conclusive evidence that OJ was, in fact, a murderer. OJ lost that case, so anyone suing him, or being sued by him, could use that case as a determinating fact to show that OJ murdered those two.
So, what is your point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.