Judge throws out part of Zimmerman libel case against NBC

Orlando Sentinel ^ | 06/19/2014 | Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner

[MeshugeMikey]

can he sue the judge as well?????

[Uncle Chip]

They fired several several people over that “honest mistake”.

That was an honest mistake.

[I want the USA back]

If you’re White, or called White, you’re automatically wrong, and you have no recourse.

[sport]

Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could see that one coming.

[Uncle Chip]

The attorneys he has in this case are not schlubs —

They will ask for her removal before she has to do any more homework.

[Starstruck]

They fired several people over that “honest mistake”.

Maybe those people will be able to sue NBC.

[MileHi]

What was “wrong” with the one she dismissed?

[Uncle Chip]

The most important point, said NBC attorney Lee Levine, is that Zimmerman was a public figure and cannot prove that NBC employees acted with "actual malice" - that they either knew what they reported was false or had grave misgivings about it.

cannot prove???

Isn't that what a trial and discovery and cross-examinations are for???

[Uncle Chip]

I don’t know but the fact that she has tipped her hand on the other three without doing her homework on them should be all his attorneys need.

[mc5cents]

Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could see that one coming.

And Helen Keller could have heard it coming!

[Uncle Chip]

Don't forget this as the reporting of this trial proceeds:

NBC is represented by several lawyers, including those with the Tampa law firm Thomas and LoCicero, the same firm that represents the Orlando Sentinel.

[PghBaldy]

Thanks. I wonder who edited the 911 tape to make him look racist, I think that was MSNBC.

[wideawake]

Nope, you would think MSNBC, but it was NBC proper. Which is what makes this all the more infuriating.

[MHGinTN]

Has anyone posted which president appointed this ‘judge’?

[Colonel_Flagg]

The issue here is that NBC can claim they didn’t use actual malice against Zimmerman and weasel their way out of the suit. The issue is that they have actual malice against every gun owner in the United States of America, which is why they used Zimmerman as an agenda-advancing pawn.

[MileHi]

Ahhh...

Fair and Balanced, anyone?

[Major Matt Mason]

I think the mess in Iraq should be enough to keep almost anyone from voting for another Bush (and yes, I know that the current situation is more Obama's handiwork than W's, but the point stands).

[Jaded]

You’d think.

[Cboldt]

-- They are arguing no malice, just an honest mistake based on ambiguous evidence. --

Heh. The legal standard is "actual malice" which has nothing to do with malice, in fact. The term of art "actual malice" exists when the publisher puts out something it knew or should have known was false. I'd say doctoring a tape satisfies that, easily. The question then is whether or not the doctoring creates a bad image of the person presented. I'd say that is easily met in this case, too.

Nelson has been overturned on appeal before, not that she cares. The lawyer in the defamation case isn't the same lawyer who took the defense side of the murder rap.

[Cboldt]

-- cannot prove? --

At the request for summary judgment, there is a possibility that there is no evidence to support the claim. Here, the actual mindset of the publisher is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the misleading report was done out of love. It does matter if it was done out of ignorance, but doctoring a recording can't be done with ignorance of what the original and edited recordings contain. They knew exactly what they had done.

"Misgivings" doesn't matter either. It's just knowing or "should have known" (not relevant in this case) that what they published was misleading as to Zimmerman's character.