DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[TheAngryClam]

Or individually, as it's easier to push around a single person than multiple defendants.

[hobbes1]

it is another to make direct allegations and present that as truth, when you haveno actual knowledge of it and haven't bothered checking.

That is my point. He is, by definition a "Public Person" involved in a public controversy, and the above, negates the charge of libel...

[Bikers4Bush]

"and was used to put the pressure on the legislators and Jeb, without regard to evidence."

Sez, you. The way most of the rest of us see it schiavo was stopped cold in his tracks from using legal BS to kill another human being.

[jwalsh07]

Wrong. Palpatine knows the law, you don't.

Palpatine doesn't know squat whcih means you, as his toady, knows less than squat.

Statements some here have made about Schiavo are clearly defamatory.

Just how would one go about defaming a worm?

If Schiavo is the evil, greedy man some here say he is, then he would dearly love to make some spending money by filing defamation suits, wouldn't he?

Whats he gonna do, file a class action defamatory lawsuit against 100 million Americans whose opinion is that he belongs in a package with TROJAN marked on it?

Should make for lots of discovery Wacky, eh? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Yep - he sues FR first in Federal Court, using that to yank up IPs, pulled posts, even FReepmail from offending posters. Those who live out of state get joined to the original action, and the Florida FReepers get named in a separate state court suit.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting that info -- nice to see facts in this case! Much appreciated!

[ckca]

Thank you for posting that.

I suspect (gotta CYA) Chancellor Palpatine has been looking into this personally because he has been considering doing this to certain FR posters here himself. I think several posters used to bring up his previous screen name and his perverted Free Republic pronouncements about his personal life under his prior screen name.

he is a vindictive malcontent troll.

[stainlessbanner]

Online libel bibliography

Allison, G. Burgess and Roberta Ramo. The Lawyer's Guide to the Internet. Chicago, IL.: American Bar Association, 1995.
Ashley, Paul Pritchard. Say It Safely: Legal Limits in Publishing, Radio, and Television. 4th ed. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1972.
Banks, Michael A. Web Psychos, Stalkers, and Pranksters: How to Protect Yourself in Cyberspace. Scottsdale, AZ.: The Coriolus Group, 1997.
Brinson, Dianne J. Internet Law & Business Handbook: A Practical Guide. Menlo Park, CA.: Ladera Press,1998.
Hance, Olivier, et al. Business and Law on the Internet. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Cavazos, Edward A. and Gavino Morin. Cyberspace and the Law: Your Rights and Duties in the On-Line World. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1994.
Cooper, Jonathan, ed. Liberating Cyberspace: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and the Internet. Chicago, IL.: Pluto Press, 1998.
Corn-Revere, Robert. Rationales & Rationalizations: Regulating The Electronic Media. Washington, D.C.:Media Institute, 1997.
Delta, George B. and Jeffrey H. Matsuura. Law of the Internet. Aspen, CO.: Aspen Law and Business, 1997.

Source: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3967

[Modernman]

Or individually, as it's easier to push around a single person than multiple defendants.

I'm having serious CivPro flashbacks.

[inquest]

A federal court sitting in a diversity case, i.e. between residents of different states applies the state substantive law (of the state which has the closer nexus to the litigation). This was decided by the US Supreme court before the War in a famous case called Erie v. Thompkins.

That's an awfully bizarre rule. One would think that due process would require that the defendant in the suit be subject to the laws of his state, not the state of whoever doesn't like what he's doing. It's like saying we should be subject to the Sharia if we disparage Mohammed.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

EXACTLY! With FR being sued, as well as individual posters, FR could cease to exist.

If we truly believe that we are entering into the biggest political battle of our lives, as evidenced by 2002, 2003, and California, ANY EXCUSE given will be used to bring down FR. Look at Bennett and Rush.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Nope. He doesn't get elevated to the status of a public person just because he hit media notoriety as a result of the defamation. Besides, even if he were, its still actionable.

[ruoflaw]

Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practise to deceive! Nice try but no cigar! This is a message board where people come to state their opinions and debate issues

[TheAngryClam]

Erie's being brought up by myself and others.

That should cause the worst flashbacks, especially if you also took something like Federal Courts (i.e. CivPro, but more arcane)

[Saundra Duffy]

GOOD FOR YOU!!! Thanks from a grateful nation of FReepers!

[tracer]

"Could he be sued for practicing proctology absent a license?"

Somehow the phrase "Physician (counselor), heal thyself" comes to mind. But nobody here should be so foolish as to dare to use it to refer to a real person, so I won't.

After all, we have been warned by someone who apparently does not understand or have a healthy respect for the process of "discovery," which has prevented a lot of vile, abusive, frivilous legal actions -- brought by members of the group of blood-sucking whores with briefcases that has ruined this country -- from ever seeing the light of day.......

[Modernman]

Yep - he sues FR first in Federal Court, using that to yank up IPs, pulled posts, even FReepmail from offending posters.

Not much Jim could do in that situation. Even if he defies a court order, that just means federal marshals come in and seize the servers and such. If he were to erase stuff, he'd be charged with destruction of evidence or whatnot.

[stainlessbanner]

14k posts is extreme. Aside from famous, hi-profile celebs, there are not many libel suits. I think the average libel lawsuit takes 4 years.

"It's hard to win a libel case given the framework the US Supreme Court has erected in order to protect First Amendment interests, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974)."

Source: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.03/letitdie.html

[PhiKapMom]

I think you have hit the nail on the head in this one -- DemocRATs would like nothing better than take down FR and some Freepers are leading the way with their lack of responsibility in posing! Maybe they do it for a reason and that reason does not benefit FR at all!

We saw the time Jim had when the Wash Post and the LA Times decided to sue. That is probably nothing compared to what could happen if the ACLU and the husband's lawyer came after this site.

Don't understand why Freepers cannot see this is good info that has been put and should be heeded. This "freedom of speech" at all costs on here is a ridiculous argument. They need to put up their own site if they want to say anything they want about anybody!

[Warren_Piece]

OK Jack McCoy, answer this-How could it poossible be slanderous to say:

"Based on what I've seen, IMHO MS is an adulterous, cruel, lying attempted murder" ???

Are you telling us that this is actionable, even with the first 6 words in the statement?