I have just found out that my life is to be broadcast on the web....

[snugglestruggle]

*speaking in a hushed tone like chess tournament commentators*

Lord Pman is now applying the " I'm curious, Sean... I presume you have a law degree to go with that physics degree as well?" Stratagem. It will be interesting to see how Sean replies. Back over to you Charles...

 

[Lord Pmann]

*speaking in a hushed tone like chess tournament commentators*

Lord Pman is now applying the " I'm curious, Sean... I presume you have a law degree to go with that physics degree as well?" Stratagem. It will be interesting to see how Sean replies. Back over to you Charles...

HAHAHAHA. Fucking hell I laughed out loud at that.

Sean is quickly googling "am I wrong to think libel is not libel"?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

From Falwel v Flynt:

Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood - See more at: [COLOR="Red"]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html#sthash.nMph5tbc.dpuf[/COLOR]

Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. 5 The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/485/46.html#sthash.nMph5tbc.dpuf

Directly from your highlighted link:

Held:

In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i. e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.

Plus, you lifted this directly from the eighth paragraph of the opinion "Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood,..."

But then you brazenly left out the remainder of the sentence, "but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." That IS the substance of the MALICE STANDARD as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan. Seriously, who do you think you are fooling with this crap!???!!

And in citing Falwell, do you not realize that this case DISPROVES the very argument you are trying to make??? Falwell sued Hustler for libel. The District Court jury ruled AGAINST Falwell on the substantive grounds that the caricature in the magazine was not believable and that NO LIBEL had occurred, BUT NONETHELESS awarded compensatory and punitive damages for "emotional distress." Emotional distress is all about pain and suffering type damages -- NOT whether those damages resulted from a libel.

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the lower court action DESPITE Hustler's argument that the MALICE STANDARD from Sullivan MUST be satisfied in order to award damages.

In reversing the opinion of the Court of Appeals, SCOTUS ruled FOR HUSTLER and AGAINST FALWELL and UPHELD the malice standard set forth in Sullivan.

I suspected you were legally illiterate, and now I'm wondering if you suffer from the other kind as well.

So let's review:

Is it possible for public figures to be libeled?

Yes, most certainly.

Is it possible for public figures (or anyone else) to fail in their libel claims on the traditional grounds of inadequate specificity of identification or that the alleged communication was non-libelous without the court ever examining or ruling on the issue of malice?

Yes, most certainly.

If a public figure is nonetheless DEFAMED and UNARGUABLY DAMAGED by a FALSE published statement, but is otherwise precluded from collecting civil damages by virtue of MALICE having NOT BEEN PROVEN, is there any SUBSTANTIVE (other than legal) distinction in the CONTENT and CHARACTER of that FALSE, DEFAMATORY statement by describing it as non-libelous?

Answer: Only in the world inhabited by Sean.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Ian, it appears Sean is stumped at the moment and is trying to gather his thoughts for a counter attack. Lord Pman appears to have surprised him with the "you have how many internet degrees stratagem".


Yes Charles that is so true. It's devastating when it's sprung on you out of the blue like Lord P did. It was a masterful stroke. Sean appears to be googling in a frenzy with no results, he's gone silent.

Now a word from our sponsors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpNSxl9o1L4

 

[Aella_]

No, libel is not protected under the first amendment. Your own fucking quote says exactly that, you fucking retard.

Jezilee, you heard that? He used the 'R' word.
Come do the right thing here, too.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Hogan, you're clouding up the case with all this evidence and factual information!!!

@Snuggle- it appears Sean has taken a timeout. Google search hits for "what is libel" are skyrocketing. Poor Sean. He's a miserable fuck.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Hogan, you're clouding up the case with all this evidence and factual information!!!

@Snuggle- it appears Sean has taken a timeout. Google search hits for "what is libel" are skyrocketing. Poor Sean. He's a miserable fuck.

* Lmao

 

[jezzilee]

Jezilee, you heard that? He used the 'R' word.
Come do the right thing here, too.

There is a reason I do not engage with you.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Directly from your highlighted link:

Held:



Plus, you lifted this directly from the eighth paragraph of the opinion "Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood,..."

But then you brazenly left out the remainder of the sentence, "but only if the statement was made "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." That IS the substance of the MALICE STANDARD as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan. Seriously, who do you think you are fooling with this crap!???!!

And in citing Falwell, do you not realize that this case DISPROVES the very argument you are trying to make??? Falwell sued Hustler for libel. The District Court jury ruled AGAINST Falwell on the substantive grounds that the caricature in the magazine was not believable and that NO LIBEL had occurred, BUT NONETHELESS awarded compensatory and punitive damages for "emotional distress." Emotional distress is all about pain and suffering type damages -- NOT whether those damages resulted from a libel.

The Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the lower court action DESPITE Hustler's argument that the MALICE STANDARD from Sullivan MUST be satisfied in order to award damages.

In reversing the opinion of the Court of Appeals, SCOTUS ruled FOR HUSTLER and AGAINST FALWELL and UPHELD the malice standard set forth in Sullivan.

I suspected you were legally illiterate, and now I'm wondering if you suffer from the other kind as well.

So let's review:

Is it possible for public figures to be libeled?

Yes, most certainly.

Is it possible for public figures (or anyone else) to fail in their libel claims on the traditional grounds of inadequate specificity of identification or that the alleged communication was non-libelous without the court ever examining or ruling on the issue of malice?

Yes, most certainly.

If a public figure is nonetheless DEFAMED and UNARGUABLY DAMAGED by a FALSE published statement, but is otherwise precluded from collecting civil damages by virtue of MALICE having NOT BEEN PROVEN, is there any SUBSTANTIVE (other than legal) distinction in the CONTENT and CHARACTER of that FALSE, DEFAMATORY statement by describing it as non-libelous?

Answer: Only in the world inhabited by Sean.

Charles did you see that? Colonel Hogan unleashes a scathing attack on Sean's position. I don't know if he can recover from the One-two of Lord P and The Colonel. I think it's all over Charles.

Ian, Sean is a master of disaster, don't count him out yet. I'm sure he has a rabbit up his sleeve as well as a few aces *snickers*.

That was a Low blow Charles. Now for another word from our sponsors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdiBhy9C3IY

 

[Aella_]

There is a reason I do not engage with you.

Indeed. Except when you feed into the splitting/bashing.
(see one of your recent threads)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That was a Low blow Charles. Now for another word from our sponsors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdiBhy9C3IY

I hope you know I'm TIVOing these ads.

 

[SheaLima]

I'm sorry this is happening to you. It's scary to go through this. I had a situation where I was broadcasted too. The overwhelming feeling to hide was intense, but there was no running. It can be a life changer. I had to decide whether to get really depressed or change my belief about what happened. I hate the victim mentality and felt that way for a long time. Soon people will forget and you will move on, but you'll be tougher and wiser for it.
Good luck. I wish you well.

 

[snugglestruggle]

I hope you know I'm TIVOing these ads.

I imagined Fata and dolf doing the voice overs in the last one hehe.

 

[akatrex]

My ex (father of two of my kids) has made a website and is planning to put details of our relationship on there.
Never mind that it will be all one-sided, and that he will paint his affair with rose....

I don't want my personal and private life out there!

Anyone faced this?
What did you do to stop it, or at least make it a more truthfull account?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Sammy_Gravano_(arrest_photo_-_1990).jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I imagined Fata and dolf doing the voice overs in the last one hehe.

Okay. So maybe I'll save that one.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Charles it looks like Colonel Hogan delivered the knockout blow, it's a stunning defeat for the Irishman.
Yes Ian your right Lord P and Colonel Hogan were too much for him, poor fellow. It was a soft performance on his part but you can bet he'll be back with a vengeance.

A last word from our sponsors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cChbA9mX1s

 

[Aella_]

I'm sorry this is happening to you. It's scary to go through this. I had a situation where I was broadcasted too. The overwhelming feeling to hide was intense, but there was no running. It can be a life changer. I had to decide whether to get really depressed or change my belief about what happened. I hate the victim mentality and felt that way for a long time. Soon people will forget and you will move on, but you'll be tougher and wiser for it.
Good luck. I wish you well.

Good point about the victim mentality. If I were in her place, that sense of being a victim or, perhaps even more, of feeling disempowered would kill me.

If I were in her shoes (not saying that my way of thinking is best one, tho), I would think of doing something to regain my sense of mastery . Aka finding a way to make sure that my voice could be heard, too (my own version of events on that website or on a close link). Only for the discerning reader who can suss what's what, since the rest don't matter.
And this way, I would be able to carry on with my life, too. As opposed to mainly focusing on or stressing out about the slander.

But I would do it very carefully, by the book, (so that the law would be able to back me up, if it comes to that) Because these things could easily backfire.
So, like Debbie said, after consulting a lawyer.

 

[bronzeage]

My ex (father of two of my kids) has made a website and is planning to put details of our relationship on there.
Never mind that it will be all one-sided, and that he will paint his affair with rose....

I don't want my personal and private life out there!

Anyone faced this?
What did you do to stop it, or at least make it a more truthfull account?

The real question is, what difference does it make?

People who know you, probably already know all of it and will know what is true and what is not. People who don't know you, have no reason to care.

What's at stake? Will you lose your job or money, if the truth is known? If so, it's too late to worry about it.

If your ex posts lies about you, those who know him, already know he is a liar. This can't be the first lie he ever told about someone in his life.

Let it go and move on.

 

[Aella_]

The real question is, what difference does it make?

What's at stake? Will you lose your job or money, if the truth is known? If so, it's too late to worry about it.

Let it go and move on.

I think that's a male pov. I'm not sure that women approach these things in the same manner.

 

[neci]

you have written about him here in detail.

you didn't post his name, only your face.

i assume he has the right to do the same.

if he crosses that, ask yourself if it is worth the time, money and effort for a lawyer. as always, i am sure you will report back.

 

[SheaLima]

Good point about the victim mentality. If I were in her place, that sense of being a victim or, perhaps even more, of feeling disempowered would kill me.

If I were in her shoes (not saying that my way of thinking is best one, tho), I would think of doing something to regain my sense of mastery . Aka finding a way to make sure that my voice could be heard, too (my own version of events on that website or on a close link). Only for the discerning reader who can suss what's what, since the rest don't matter.
And this way, I would be able to carry on with my life, too. As opposed to mainly focusing on or stressing out about the slander.

But I would do it very carefully, by the book, (so that the law would be able to back me up, if it comes to that) Because these things could easily backfire.
So, like Debbie said, after consulting a lawyer.

If it was like my situation, the damage is already done by friends and family already knowing. I hope this isn't the case for her.

 

[TwinkleStars]

We interrupt this thread to hear from our sponsor.....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S7Eer_42-ZI/AAAAAAAACeI/knwhM6vCgng/s1600/YAYCLUSTERS.png

We now bring you back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[Aella_]

If it was like my situation, the damage is already done by friends and family already knowing. I hope this isn't the case for her.

I was, actually, thinking about a situation (of being unfairly attacked) that I found myself into, several years ago.
But it was a quite different situation. Given that, I think you might be right.

 

[bronzeage]

I think that's a male pov. I'm not sure that women approach these things in the same manner.

We all have to live with the consequences of our actions. Expecting people to keep your secrets is not realistic for men or women.

 

[Aella_]

Expecting people to keep your secrets is not realistic for men or women.

Haha true. That's one of the reasons that I don't do pm's (can't trust myself or others)