Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment
Examiner.com Chicago ^ | April 20, 2010 | Kimberly Dvorak

Posted on 04/20/2010 9:07:43 AM PDT by bcsco

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 next last
To: dragnet2

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?


41 posted on 04/20/2010 9:30:15 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Never mind the law, this is the right thing to do! </barfalicious liberal judge mode>
42 posted on 04/20/2010 9:30:47 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

“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.


43 posted on 04/20/2010 9:30:50 AM PDT by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

They are not called criminaliens for nothing.


44 posted on 04/20/2010 9:31:32 AM PDT by C210N (A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

“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


45 posted on 04/20/2010 9:31:44 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
From thed story...

After a 15-minute recess, Judge Styn returned with his verdict finding Schwilk liable for one count of defamation for "carelessly" calling Jimenez a "criminal." Schwilk plans to appeal. Asked about the verdict, Schwilk said, "Judge Styn not only ruled against our protection of free speech, he is attempting to de-criminalize illegal aliens and the crimes they commit on American soil. Styn is yet another example of a bad judge attempting to legislate from the bench."

Stupid activist judge is part of the ninth Circus district, home of the overturns.
46 posted on 04/20/2010 9:32:01 AM PDT by Issaquahking (Help Sarah Palin! go to - http://www.conservatives4palin.com - You know what to do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kimberly GG
Several years ago, I had a conversation with my ex-wife's friend, an attorney for the county down in Virginia. He was using the excuse that just because they were in the country illegally, it didn't make them criminals.

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.

47 posted on 04/20/2010 9:32:37 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (RAT Hunting Season started the evening of March 21st, 2010!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Well, all us terrorists, as Janet Napolitano/HS calls us, should file a class action suit.


48 posted on 04/20/2010 9:33:47 AM PDT by presently no screen name ( Repeal ZeroCare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
I think I agree with the judge if this is what defamed him

On what grounds? The email was sent to law enforcement officials, and the plaintiff acknowledged having attacked the photographer; the act this poster represents.

49 posted on 04/20/2010 9:34:31 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; OCCASparky; chicagolady

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.


50 posted on 04/20/2010 9:36:27 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
You can add trade misconduct to that list too.

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.

51 posted on 04/20/2010 9:37:01 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (I don't look for leaders. I follow my own path, my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
It is a matter of free speech.

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).

52 posted on 04/20/2010 9:39:34 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

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.


53 posted on 04/20/2010 9:41:23 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

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).


54 posted on 04/20/2010 9:42:59 AM PDT by jeffc (I now live in National Socialist America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
It (usually) takes a lot more than being called a "criminal" to win a judgment for defamation per se.

Like robbery, assault and battery?

55 posted on 04/20/2010 9:43:16 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

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


56 posted on 04/20/2010 9:43:56 AM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

Slam dunk on appeal IMHO. Plaintiff not present so defendant couldn’t face accuser. First Amendment issues, too.


57 posted on 04/20/2010 9:46:11 AM PDT by piytar (Ammo is hard to find! Bought some lately? Please share where at www.ammo-finder.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antidemoncrat

...can we charge the Judge with Contempt of Court.


58 posted on 04/20/2010 9:47:59 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Oh, give it a break. You don't know what you're talking about.

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...

59 posted on 04/20/2010 9:49:14 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

“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?


60 posted on 04/20/2010 9:49:39 AM PDT by ExTxMarine (Hey Congress: Go Conservative or Go Home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson