Posted on 10/13/2016 12:18:27 PM PDT by broken_arrow1
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2220&context=wmlr
All Trump has to do is prove that it was printed, then the defendant has the burden of showing that what they printed was factual. Then the shoe is on the other foot for the `rat preverts.
Trump could wind up as the old Gray Whore’s largest shareholder. Sorry Carlos!
Fox NEws used to be so much bettr..
As soon as the old man gave it to his kids it went to crap
Not that simple. From your citation:
By constitutionalizing the common law of defamation, the
United States Supreme Court dramatically reshaped the elements of the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Until 1964, a plaintiff usually had to show only that the defendant intentionally or negligently published a remark that defamed the plaintiff in the minds of the recipients. Although the plaintiff had to allege falsity, the defendant generally had to justify his statement by proving its truth. Upon the plaintiff’s showing that the statement was defamatory, liability and damages were presumed. The defendant, of course, had a considerable number of potential defenses, but these defenses were generally burdensome to establish or defeasible, or both. Thus, the defendant bore the burden of proof on the crucial issues.
With the Supreme Court’s constitutionalization of this area of the law, however, the plaintiff has lost his favored position. Even leaving aside the often critical questions pertaining to special and actual injury damages, the plaintiff’s prima facie case has become more complex and more difficult to establish because he now bears the burden of proof on the issues of falsity and fact. Moreover, in some cases, the courts have required the plaintiff to establish the element of fault with clear and convincing proof.’ The shoe is indeed on the other foot. In light of the plaintiff’s now disfavored position, it is not surprising that plaintiffs win less than ten percent of the litigated defamation suits.’
“actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth”
The SCOTUS was anticipating the MSM, 2016.
He did not. No way. Shep the Mascara Boy channeling his inner Ron Burgundy persona?
This is the same Shep who tried to run down a female reporter with his car after she took a parking spot he thought was his?
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.