Posted on 02/29/2016 7:27:33 AM PST by patlin
First of all, someone cannot just file a suit without showing just cause, i.e. evidence to the contrary.
Second, this is a state by state case as A1 of the Constitution does not give Congress authority over the press, that authority to this day remains with the states & thus what the SCOTUS did was change “state” law, a HUGE NO NO, they legislated for the state from the bench of a federal court.
Therefore, if someone is going t write a book and publish here in America, they and better have all their “i’s” dotted and their “t’s” crossed, because first and foremost, as long as the other cannot show just cause why the court should take the case, then there should be no worry.
Yeah, that's gotta be it.
Are you a lawyer? Because if you are, you should turn in your bar card. You don't have to show 'just cause' to file a complaint. You can file a complaint for anything - including suing the Pope for bastardy. There is no provision in any state code or federal code for showing cause before you file a lawsuit - unless you've been determined to be a vexatious litigant, which is a very narrow exception.
Oh, damn!
I better run and hide before you correct my grammar, too!
So tell me, when’s the last time a big media outlet had to pay for their journalistic malpractice?
“Burden of proof” my backside!
But you know, trolls gotta troll.
The issue isn’t grammar knucklehead. Try to keep up.
I guess the concept of freedom being messy goes over your head. But I suppose that is what one should expect from someone who would like to make the United States like Britain in regard to libel laws.
"Judas" always hides behind "the poor" before his kiss.
Well, that may be how you guys handle it in liberal states, however, where I live, where we still have constitutional conservative judges, one must first establish ‘jurisdiction’ and then once that is established, one must establish ‘just cause’ in their brief that actual ‘harm’ may have been done. The other side files their brief and then the judge determines whether or not to take the case. And it does not take a mountain of money to do that.
So as I said, if one stick to facts, undisputable facts, they have nothing to worry about should they decide to write a book about the facts in front of them.
A "priesthood of propaganda" is not freedom, but I guess that's the kind of duplicity we should expect from an oily character trying to defend lying in the public square to manipulate the masses.
Freedom is messy - learn it, love it, live it. And stop running interference for speech-muzzlers like the Saudis.
And by the way, are you an attorney?
Manipulating the public through deceit can not be defended by any real American.
Stop running interference for the “Ministry of Propaganda.”
Judas was the one who danced to the tune of the rich Pharisees. And I'm pretty sure the Pharisees would have loved your idea of shifting the burden of proof to the defendant - which in their case would have been Jesus.
Stop being a troll for muzzling people.
How do you look at yourself in the mirror knowing you are of the same moral caliber as those who try to drown out “abortion” by screeching “FREEDOM OF CHOICE?”
Well, we definitely know they were all behind your consequence free false accusation program.
Well, DUH! But just because you file a complaint does not automatically make it a full blown court case.
I think you are generally aware of this but are just playing stupid because it suits your position on shifting the burden to defendants in libel case.
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.