Though I despise Judge Nelson, and think she should have recused herself from any case involving Zimmerman, libel law is severely flawed and needs to be changed. Why is evidence of “malice” required under the law, when it is obvious that NBC intended to benefit itself by deliberately and knowingly broadcasting evidence NBC falsified, that exploited and greatly harmed an individual? Did NBC harm Zimmerman or not? If a drunk driver kills someone, is he immune from responsibility because he lacked malicious intent against the victim? The networks made beaucoup money off this case, and had a corrupt interest in hyping it into existence.
I suspect that Nelson is correct that there is no evidence that NBC acted out of malice towards GZ. Absent some sort of “I’m going to get that sucka” declaration, what evidence could there be? I doubt that they felt any. As true believers in PC fantasies, they see perfidy and libel for “the greater good” (as they define it) as altruism, not malice. To NBC staff, GZ was just an opportunity. They could get career points by pursuing NBC’s leftist politics (gun control/anti-self defense/stirring up racist animosity), and promoting the false idea that “whites” hunt down and murder black children. Isn’t presenting sensationalized false information for politics and ratings exactly what NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. do every day?
I think NBC totally acted out of malice. What is the legal definition of “malice”? One party intending to do harm to another. You don’t think willfully, knowingly, purposely editing a tape to make Zimmerman appear racist is not malice? The guy could have spent the rest of his life in jail! If that is not the purest example of intent to harm, injure or cause distress to someone than I don’t know what is.
In criminal law. In its legal sense, this word does not simply mean ill will against a person, but signifies a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse. Bromage v. Prosser, 4 Barn. & C. 255. A conscious violation of the law (or the prompting of the mind to commit it) which operates to the prejudice of another person. About as clear, comprehensive, and correct a definition as the authorities afford is that “malice is a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty aud fatally bent on mischief, the existence of which is inferred from acts committed or words spoken.” Harris v. State, 8 Tex. App. 109. “Malice,” in its common acceptation, means ill will towards some person. In its legal sense, it applies to a wrongful act done intentionally, without legal justification or excuse. Dunn v. Hall, 1 Ind. 344. A man may do an act willfully, and yet be free of malice. But he cannot do an act maliciously without at the same time doing it willfully. The malicious doing of an act in- cludes the willful doing of it. Malice includes intent and will. State v. Bobbins. 06 Me. 328. For other definitions see Shannon v. Jones, 70 Tex. 141. 13 S. W. 477; Williams v. Williams. 20 Colo. 51. 37 Pac. 014; Smith v. Railroad Co., 87 Md. 48. 3S Atl. 1072; In re Freche (D. C.) 109 Fed. 621 ; Craft v. State, 3 Kan. 486; Lewis v. Chapman. 10 N. Y. 309; State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475. 21 S. W. 193; State v. Witt. 34 Kan. 488. 8 Pac. 709; State v. Walker, 9 Houst. tDel.) 404, 33 Atl. 227; Cotton v. State. 32 Tex. 014; Com. v. Chance, 174 Mass. 245. 54 N. E. 551. 75 Am. St. Rep. 306. In the law of libel and slander. An evil intent or motive arising from spite or ill will; personal hatred or ill will; culpable recklessness or a willful and wanton disregard of the rights and interests of the per- ) MALICE son defamed. McDonald v. Brown, 23 R. I. 546, 51 Atl. 213, 58 L. R. A. 768, 91 Am. St. Rep. 659; Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 Pac. 576; Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, 114 Iowa, 298, 86 N. W. 323, 54 L R. A. 855, 89 Am. St. Rep. 365; Minter v. Bradstreet Co., 174 Mo. 444, 73 S. W. 668
http://thelawdictionary.org/malice/