Posted on 04/20/2010 9:07:43 AM PDT by bcsco
An illegal-alien day laborer who attacked a U.S. photographer at a notorious San Diego day labor site in 2006, was awarded $2,500 in damages for "defamation per se" by Judge Ronald Styn in a non-jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Public “servant” unions should be ILLEGAL!
You agree to serve a purpose for the “good” of the people when you sign up as a public servant (i.e., city hall, police, military, fire department, etc...). Therefore, you should not be allowed to blackmail the taxpayer into paying you more and more and more - by threatening to with-hold the tasks that you agreed to provide in exchange for being given the rights and privileges of your position!
What is the difference between mafia enforcers threatening to “not protect” your company from the local thugs and your local police department threatening a walkout?
“Schwilk, who is a retired Marine, says he will fight until America’s borders are fully secured and the country returns to an orderly system of legal immigration. He believes most Americans strongly oppose amnesty for the approximately 20 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. “
Yet the GOP continues to support and force on us OBL Republican candidates who’ll push “path to citizenship” AMNESTY.
They are not called criminaliens for nothing.
“The real problem isn’t the illegals...”
They are part of the real problem. To pretend they aren’t is counter productive.
attack ALL parts of the problem
I used logic to explain the situation. A week later, my wife furiously told me that her friend had backed away from the illegal community and wouldn't help them anymore. I talked to the guy and he thanked me for straightening him out.
I divorced her before she beat our son to death.
Well, all us terrorists, as Janet Napolitano/HS calls us, should file a class action suit.
On what grounds? The email was sent to law enforcement officials, and the plaintiff acknowledged having attacked the photographer; the act this poster represents.
Prior to the 1920s there was no such thing as an illegal alien. Then it became a mis-demeanor, less serious than parking in a handicapped zone.
Tancredo’s HR4437 tried to change it from a mis-demeanor to a felony. HR4437 failed.
So technically an illegal alien is not a criminal.
Of course many use bogus IDs which might be a felony. And some (but not most) rape, rob, murder, etc. which is clearly a felony.
But to call a person a criminal who is only guilty of a mis-demeanor is clearly freedom of speech, even if not technically true.
For example I’ll here and now call CRIMINAL the 26 year old son of our IL Senate President. He has never been convicted of a crime. He even beat the multiple DUI raps prior to his current DUI rap. Never the less he is criminal and I’m exercising my free speech to call a misdemeanor violator a criminal. And if he sues me he will not win in court ... not even in IL courts where his daddy picks the judges.
It is a matter of free speech.
It (usually) takes a lot more than being called a "criminal" to win a judgment for defamation per se. Insults usually don't apply.
"John is a criminal" usually gets dismissed.
"John assaulted a photographer" is another matter. If that was the judges decision, I'd have a different opinion on this case unless there's reasonable belief on the part of the publisher that this individual did that.
Actually, this case is about a criminal act. The plaintiff assaulted a photographer. The email the defendant is accused of sending (which he admits) was specific to that assault. So, this suit was based on a criminal act, committed by an illegal-alien while on American soil (San Diego).
If I take a picture of you and caption it that you are a child abuser and limit my distribution to law enforcement, you would say that is okay? If you got mad at me for it and you hit me, then that would make my action okay?
This has nothing to do with first amendment rights. We are both free to defame anyone we please. We just have to pay the penalty.
The caption was false and clearly was intended to defame the men in it. I’m sure the creator could have found pictures of actual illegal alien criminals to make his point but using someone who had no such record was wrong.
I’m afraid I’m starting to think that Zero and his kool-aid drinking Democrat-Fascists really want another civil war in this country so they can proclaim martial law. This will allow them to rule without regard to the Constitution (they only pretend to adhere to it now).
Like robbery, assault and battery?
Hey, Alberto, you were in the USA illegally, thus breaking the law. Therefore,
YOU
ARE
A
CRIMINAL.
Come sue me in Florida! I’ll buy you an airline ticket!
/s
Slam dunk on appeal IMHO. Plaintiff not present so defendant couldn’t face accuser. First Amendment issues, too.
...can we charge the Judge with Contempt of Court.
From the article: An illegal-alien day laborer who attacked a U.S. photographer at a notorious San Diego day labor site in 2006, was awarded $2,500 in damages for "defamation per se" by Judge Ronald Styn in a non-jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.
The illegal WAS on US soil and DID attack a photographer. That's a fact which he, the alien, hasn't disputed. That makes him a criminal, and it makes the poster accurate, ergo, no unlawful defamation occurred.
The article also points out that the poster was sent to law enforcement officials. It was later disseminated to places such as Fox, but not by the defendant.
Now, using your logic, The Examiner may now also be sued for defamation for publishing this article online, and stating that the plaintiff attacked the photographer. Do you want to make that claim as well?
I think you need to revisit your thought process...
“The caption was false and clearly was intended to defame the men in it.”
The plaintiff in this case was in fact involved in the assault case which this email was concerning. So, he was wanted for involvement in assault and battery events.
So, let me get your argument correct:
Your picture is taken while you are beating someone.
Local police, news channels, etc... could be charged with “defamation per se” just for showing your picture in connection with that attack!
Are you listening to your argument, or are you just wanting to argue for the sake of argument?
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.