Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: FateAmenableToChange

This is less about suing for damages, than it is about public opinion. Your last point about intent is correct: Cain only needs to prove it false.

The very mention of a courthouse would create pressure for the women to throw their cards on the table. Their refusal to do so, would of course favor Cain. I’m not so sure about the 3rd lady: 13 years is a long time.


60 posted on 12/03/2011 2:12:07 PM PST by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Salvavida

“This is less about suing for damages, than it is about public opinion. Your last point about intent is correct: Cain only needs to prove it false.”

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”.
-http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3


61 posted on 12/03/2011 2:25:59 PM PST by the Original Dan Vik ("Men don't follow titles, they follow courage." -William Wallace in Braveheart, 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: Salvavida

Cain’s a public figure. The court would probably require an intent / actual malice element.


66 posted on 12/05/2011 7:31:53 AM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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