Skip to comments.
DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]
Florida Bar Association ^
Posted on 10/24/2003 10:14:40 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
Edited on 10/24/2003 12:02:17 PM PDT by Lead Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,140, 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180 ... 1,761-1,774 next last
To: Indy Pendance
You can buy it here...costs no more than Tanq...once you drink that you'll never go back.
1,141
posted on
10/24/2003 5:48:43 PM PDT
by
Neets
(<---Posting as Cheesecake, raspberry, chocolate, white chocolate, peanutbutter, plain ole NY Style)
To: nickcarraway
I can't imagine how anybody could prove actual damages from a posting on a Web site.
To: concerned about politics
Riiight. None of you bothered to screw in a light bulb when clinton was president ! Naw!
Clinton made it perfectly O.K. to screw anywhere!
Even the Oval Office.
To: nickcarraway
Do you know they are impoverished?My understanding from the posts here is that the Schindlers have pretty much lost most of their assets pursuing this case.
Besides, if you are seeking to clear your good name, the assets of the offending party don't matter at all.
I thought the word was that Schiavo isn't interested in his good name, only the money.
Of course, if Mr. Schiavo were to sue Mr. Schindler, he would have to make public a lot of information he is now keeping secret and he would have to attempt to prove what Mr. Schindler said was untrue.
Actually, the reverse is true on some of the more lurid charges being thrown out. Otherwise, someone could post a billboard in your hometown calling you a homosexual pedophile, and you would have ZERO ability to prosecute the case in court--because you cannot prove a negative assertion (i.e., you can't prove "I am not a homosexual pedophile" as a conclusive fact). Essentially, the defendant would have to prove that you ARE really that vile and odious.
1,144
posted on
10/24/2003 5:49:14 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Catspaw; Poohbah
Bill Clinton also had extensive resources. Mr. Schiavo must have almost unlimited resources to pursue this.
To: aristeides
Good point. Especially when these accusations have been made on nationwide media.
To: Neets
Can you get it in the states?
To: nickcarraway
Has Mr. Schiavo asked any party for a retraction?IIRC, once he does that, he has a limited time period to act. A wise strategery would be to collect as much evidence as possible before striking.
How many parties in the Unites States would he need to pursue?
At first, he'd only have to pursue FR to divulge the names of the posters in question, then their ISPs.
From there? Who knows? Maybe it's only 20-30 people on FR, posting under multiple nics...
1,148
posted on
10/24/2003 5:51:59 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Neets
Boodles Gin (1.75 LTR): 96 PTS BEVERAGE TESTING INSTITUTE. Reminiscent of citrus, flowers and spices. Loaded with fragrance, this is a classic combination of power and finesse as it lingers with a smooth, oily finish.
To: Neets
Never mind my last post. Thanks Neets. I'll look for it next time I'm buying gin. Thanks! for the heads up.
To: Dog Gone
And a meteorite could fall through your roof and crush your esophagus while sleeping. CP was fear-mongering. At some point on the road to full adulthood we all learn to turn off the fear-mongerers. Why?
Because there's no end to fear. This is a forum of strong opinions. Stromg opinions are needed to form and police good laws. Milquetoast opinions result in tyrannny.
Be a free adult and be NOT afraid to give your strong opinion in this forum. Better men and women than us all gave their fortune, blood and lives for us to be able to do exactly that.
1,151
posted on
10/24/2003 5:53:10 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: Indy Pendance
Wow thanks partner, or ma`am wichever is the case.
Either a JD Double shot straight up or 7&7,Heavy on the 7!
Sorry to drink a run but I got to head out. I may drop back by in a while!
See if you can get the damned jukebox fixed. Maybe if you get the Lead Moderator to aim that Anti-Freeper gamma ray gun in that direction and give it a short burst...
1,152
posted on
10/24/2003 5:53:27 PM PDT
by
Area51
(RINO hunter!)
To: nickcarraway
Bill Clinton also had extensive resources.It doesn't matter; the Sullivan rule makes it essentially impossible to prove libel against him, no matter how much money he has.
Mr. Schiavo must have almost unlimited resources to pursue this.
The ACLU is working with Mr. Schiavo. There are your "unlimited resources."
1,153
posted on
10/24/2003 5:54:00 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: nickcarraway
Has Mr. Schiavo asked any party for a retraction? Hasn't as yet.
How many parties in the Unites States would he need to pursue?
One--if the other party is in another state. That's for a federal lawsuit.
To: Poohbah
I thought the word was that Schiavo isn't interested in his good name, only the money.You may be right, but do you really think that Schiavo can make money by lawsuits against anyone who said or posted something to him?
Besides, how can he go after someone who posted something on a web site, if he doesn't go after Mr. Schindler who made the allegations on the national media? How could he reasonably argue that such posts caused damages, but not the Mr. Schindler?
To: bvw
Be a free adult and be NOT afraid to give your strong opinion in this forum. Better men and women than us all gave their fortune, blood and lives for us to be able to do exactly that.Oh, I know. And of course, it keeps that feverish poster over at LP very busy.
To: nickcarraway
Besides, how can he go after someone who posted something on a web site, if he doesn't go after Mr. Schindler who made the allegations on the national media? How could he reasonably argue that such posts caused damages, but not the Mr. Schindler?The statute of limitations is just starting to run on Mr. Schindler and restarts everytime he makes the allegations, for the purposes of suit.
And the law is a curious thing, is it not?
To: Area51; Lead Moderator
Your drink will be waiting. Stop over later. And from what I gather, the staff here is sorely underpaid. But, I'm sure with a little coaxing, we can have that juke box fixed in a wink of an eye. John probably will be on it tonight sometime. In the meantime, I've got my kid's boombox out in the SUV. I'll just plug it in.
To: nickcarraway
Besides, how can he go after someone who posted something on a web site, if he doesn't go after Mr. Schindler who made the allegations on the national media? How could he reasonably argue that such posts caused damages, but not the Mr. Schindler?He may go after the press outlets involved at a time of his choosing.
And as for going after Mr. Schindler, he can even argue that the familial bond outweighs the direct damage caused. In other words, he doesn't have to play your game, and he can look noble in so doing.
Bottom line: if you don't know something is a fact, don't state it as such, and you'll save yourself a lot of grief.
1,159
posted on
10/24/2003 5:57:46 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Poohbah
The difference being this involves a very specific occurence with regards to his wife, not an open-ended one like your example. Plus, in an attempt to prove such, the defense could subpoena a lot of things that aren't open now.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,140, 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180 ... 1,761-1,774 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson