Posted on 07/30/2010 8:47:32 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
A Roanoke community activist who compared a city police officer's shooting of a teenager with the actions of a Ku Klux Klansman must pay the officer $5,000 for defamation, a judge said Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at roanoke.com ...
Correct.
In a civil trial the fifth amendment does not apply.
If a witness refuses to testify, the testimony of opposing witnesses is deemed to be true. That is the civil penalty for refusing to testify.
you are correct, but this was editorial opinion in the form of speech at a public meeting. That is protected speech,not matter how vile or perhaps wrong.
1. Defamation has a working definition and elements that have to be met. It isn't just how someone views what you say.
You need to re-visit this period in History, and read the newspapers of the time. This is EXACTLY what the founding fathers were defending. Depicting King George III as an Ass in the newspapers was treated as treason. The Founding Fathers stated unequivatively that we have Freedom of Speech - and there are no "but" statements in that phrase.
Now in cases where physical damage may be done, there are common sense limitations - such as yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater. But calling a cop, or any elected offical a name - that goes with the job.
How would you feel about paying a fine and going to jail for posting your opinion about Pres. Barak Hussein Obama?
They are libelous, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
In a civil trial setting, his attorney knew full well that a refusal to testify makes whatever his accuser says, true in the eyes of the law.
It is not about free speech. It is about rules of civil procedure.
If he wanted to argue about free speech, he should have testified. Since he refused to testify, he forfeited that defense.
Evidently the judge did not see that way. Thankfully.
IANAL, but I do believe that in order for Slander to be met, I must know the facts and then malicously state a lie as the truth.
Such as stating that Pres. Barak Hussein Obama is a fine, upstanding, trustworthy, honorable President. That is something I believe is slanderous; for I know the truth, and what I said has little or no bearing upon the facts as I know them.
So, did this Activist state his opinion (protected) or did he know the facts and opt to espouse a lie? Given the context of the meeting, this appears to be an abuse of this man's Constitutional rights.
Or, ask yourself another question "How would you rather have the courts react - punish by imprisonment and fine for saying something they don 't like, or allow the protection of the First Ammendment?" Given the option, I'd rather that we honor the First Ammendment.
How about Sherrod saying the Andrew Breitbart wants black people “back on the plantation”?
I hope he counter-sues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Outstanding!
All he would have had to do is preface his statements with the phrase “In my opinion.....” and it wouldn’t have been defamation. Expensive lesson in the law for him.
Not knowing this specifics of this case, I'm wondering what you think the police officer should be charged with and why.
Remember your opinion when the time comes that you are imprisoned and fined for stating your opinion about Pres. Obama.
Freedom is overrated. /s
Defamation has been a tort since the founding of the nation. You are just flat out wrong if you assert otherwise. To be exact, defamation law actually pre-dates the Constitution. Read up on the Zenger case (1734.)
Now in cases where physical damage may be done, there are common sense limitations - such as yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater. But calling a cop, or any elected offical a name - that goes with the job.
You seem to not know what Defamation is. Defamation isn't "calling someone a name." Defamation has working elements.
How would you feel about paying a fine and going to jail for posting your opinion about Pres. Barak Hussein Obama?
Red herring. No one is talking about putting people in jail or fining them. Defamation is a Civil Tort (a private wrong) between the person who is defamed and the person committing the defamation. Further, as I previously stated, one is free to have an opinion or state an opinion about anyone. You seem to have trouble understanding the elements of defamation. Perhaps you should look them up?
Race hustling Muslim Omar vs cop who defended himself when attempting to arrest a violent offender. I am with the cop.
I like your style.
"Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?
The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority."
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions; Jan. 1800
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html
I do believe that you are comparing apples to oranges.
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.