Posted on 07/01/2020 11:09:49 AM PDT by C19fan
The judge concludes that Stephen Elliott, an author who was accused of rape, is not a public figure who needs to show actual malice to prevail. In a decision with potentially large ramifications, New York federal judge LaShann DeArcy Hall won't dismiss a libel suit against "Shitty Media Men" creator Moira Donegan.
(Excerpt) Read more at hollywoodreporter.com ...
knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.
Mr. Elliott does not have to prove Donegan knew the statement was false as would a public figure.
War is coming, people. In fact, I think it's already proceeding apace.
“LaShann Moutique DeArcy Hall”
I want a rockin cool name like that!
Sounds like a lawfirm all on it’s own.
I normally don’t trust dash women.
But no dash??
Donegan is represented by Robbie Kaplan, a co-founder of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund and Elliott is represented by Andrew Miltenberg, a sexual assault defense attorney. Elliott's lawsuit seeks to make public the identities of those who contributed to the crowd-sourced Google spreadsheet.
Google [Goolag] reportedly told The Daily Beast that it would "oppose any attempt by Mr. Elliott to obtain information about this document from us."
How's that??
War is coming, people. In fact, I think it's already proceeding apace.
That it is.
The results of the November election won't be accepted by either side.
I would do it anyway, just to hurt her.
A question: Are you aware that the First Amendment is - you know, like, an amendment to the original Constitution?Of course you are. It wasnt in the unamended Constitution because the Federalists didnt put it there. The reason they didnt put it there was because recognized rights of Americans were a matter of common law. The Federalists knew that the rights of Americans were therefore nowhere comprehensively compiled - and that it was a fools errand to try to compile such a comprehensive list.
The Federalists had much bigger fish to fry - replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitutions stronger national government first and last - and consequently had no interest at all in modifying any common law right. They just didnt need the controversy that would inevitably entail.
So much for their pre-ratification intentions. But ratification of the Constitution was a close-run thing, and the Antifederalists were able to exact a promise of a bill of rights by amendment to the new constitution from the Federalists during the debates over ratification.
The Bill of Rights represents the Federalists solution to that problem. It consists of the first eight amendments, which enumerate (as the Ninth Amendment puts it) only those rights which had historically been abused by tyrants. Not all rights, it would have been a fools errand to attempt it. It is the Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.which expresses the Federalists true perspective on all rights.The First Amendment refers to the freedom of the press, and the Second Amendment refers to the RKBA. But although 2A implies things like the ability to own ammunition which are not expressly articulated, no one has ever proposed that RKBA entails the right to commit armed assault, let along murder. Similarly there are things you can physically do with a printing press that you are not legally allowed to do. Ever wonder why pornography restrictions survived passage of 1A? Simple - the freedom of the press - what in 1788 everyone understood to be a right - did not prevent regulation of pornography then, and thus it doesnt prevent it now.
Now as to the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision: it rests firmly on the claim that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First AmendmentAnd the problem with that is that your right to not have your reputation unjustifiably assaulted with a (reputation ally) deadly weapon - the law of libel - was not touched at all by the First Amendment. And until the Warren Court unanimously went off the rails in 1964, no court had ever held that it did.And now you know why Scalia did, and Thomas does, favor overruling Sullivan.
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.