DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[Catspaw]

Nick, one correction: the libel laws in England are much less strict that the US. That's why David Irving,the Holocaust denier sued (forgot her name) in the UK courts and not here.

[Poohbah]

Deborah Lipstadt. She won--essentially, she legally PROVED that the Holocaust happened.

[connectthedots]

You can no more be sued for calling Schiavo a murderer than you can be sued for calling Clinton a rapist.

I would disagree. On the other hand, if someone were to call Schiavo a murderer it would likely be a defense that because the story has gained such notoriety most people would know that he didn't actually 'murder' his wife and the such language would be rhetorical in nature. This would be much like calling an abortionist a murderer. In addition, political speach enjoys the broadest of protections outside of the legislative or judicial process and comments related to the Schaivo case could readily be construed a plitical in nature.

[Catspaw]

Deborah Lipstadt. She won--essentially, she legally PROVED that the Holocaust happened.

I remembered the Deborah part (except I remembered it as "Debbie"), but couldn't get the last name. But I remember the trial well. Funny thing, though--Irving thought he'd be able to win because of the construct of the UK's libel laws. The decision all but excoriated Mr. Irving.

[Poohbah]

The difference being this involves a very specific occurence with regards to his wife, not an open-ended one like your example.

Sorry, it doesn't wash. It is logically impossible to prove a negative statement to conclusion; that is why the state carries the burden of proof in criminal trials.

Plus, in an attempt to prove such, the defense could subpoena a lot of things that aren't open now.

True. But a smart plaintiff's attorney will simply file a narrowly-crafted suit on a specific comment, probably the most lurid and most difficult to prove of the bunch.

Discovery, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an open-ended process.

[nickcarraway]

The ACLU is working with Mr. Schiavo. There are your "unlimited resources."

The ACLU is helping Mr. Schiavo in his efforts to put down his wife, not with any libel actions. The ACLU, as insane as it is, is not going to help him go after some web sites, etc etc. The ACLU is crazy, but that would require them to contradict half the lawsuits they have going on out there. The ACLU is NEVER going to help Mr. Schiavo with any libel suits.

[Catspaw]

One problem of calling Michael Schiavo a murderer is that Terri isn't dead yet. Now you can allege that Schiavo wants her dead, but until she dies, it's not a murder.

[Torie]

I am not sure what Palpatine is suggesting is libel, since I have chosen not to participate in the subject threads, but if someone is typing that the subject in question is/has committed attempted murder, that seems more in the nature of an errant legal opinion than libel. The underlying facts of who did what to whom are presumably not that much in dispute. But I am wading in sort of blind.

[connectthedots]

Forgot 3 cans of track tension and do you want large or small deflections.

[Poohbah]

On the other hand, if someone were to call Schiavo a murderer it would likely be a defense that because the story has gained such notoriety most people would know that he didn't actually 'murder' his wife and the such language would be rhetorical in nature. This would be much like calling an abortionist a murderer.

Quite true. But the more lurid allegations are that Mr. Schiavo deliberately CAUSED his wife's injuries.

[huck von finn]

CP was fear-mongering. At some point on the road to full adulthood we all learn to turn off the fear-mongerers.

This coming from someone who insinuated I would go to hell after death, all because I disagreed with his/her opinion. Yeah. Tell me about fear mongering.

[nickcarraway]

You think that FR is the only place in the United States that has people criticizing Mr. Schiavo? If it's going on here, it's going on all over. Mr. Schiavo is going to have to do some extensive work all over the country just to get here. Besides that, he's going to have to prove damages. But before he gets to the level of FR, he'd have to sue all the nationwide media people. How can he argue that a web site creates damages, but all those cases didn't. Is there even any evidence to show Mr. Schiavo even knows about FR? I would say he has tons of legal problems without opening more.

[general_re]

Funny thing, though--Irving thought he'd be able to win because of the construct of the UK's libel laws.

99 times out of 100, the plaintiff does win in UK libel cases. The burden of proof over there is exactly the reverse of US law - there, the burden is on the defendent to prove that he/she didn't libel or otherwise defame the plaintiff. Which usually boils down to meaning that you must prove that what you said/wrote is, in fact, true.

[Poohbah]

The ACLU is helping Mr. Schiavo in his efforts to put down his wife, not with any libel actions.

That's today. Tomorrow may be a different story.

The ACLU is crazy, but that would require them to contradict half the lawsuits they have going on out there.

False. They routinely decline to get involved with death penalty cases for murders committed by minors because doing so winds up raising the issue of whether minors can give consent for sex or abortion. We have here the ACLU's opposition to murder coming into conflict with its favoring abortion rights and sexual emancipation for minors.

If it helps the liberal extremist cause, they'll do it.

[Poohbah]

You think that FR is the only place in the United States that has people criticizing Mr. Schiavo? If it's going on here, it's going on all over.

Well, then. That explains why Al Gore didn't get a single vote in 2000.

[nickcarraway]

I think you are trying to say the same thing as I said. People in England have to watch themselves more than they do here.

[nickcarraway]

I think you are trying to say the same thing as I said. People in England have to watch themselves more than they do here. [I worked as a reporter in England}

[honeygrl]

I looked over at TOS but there aren't that many posts regarding this thread.. maybe I'm looking at the wrong one. (i like to look in the Biker Bar just to see if anyone makes fun of me for any stupid comments I might make.. it's the masochist in me i guess)

[Central Scrutiniser]

I love it!

One time a guy who ran a board accused me of libel, it was quite hilarious, he kept up the blather until I told him that I could consult any one of the cadre of lawyers I work with to examine the merits of his claim. I didn't hear much after that, he must have been too busy finding a way to grift...

[ModelBreaker]

How about under a court order? That's quite different from a subpoena.

A subpoena is a court order.