DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER; (Becareful what you say about the Clintons)

Florida Bar Association ^ | 10/24/03 | dubyaismypresident

[NeoCaveman]

This is thread is satire. If you read a little further you will find that I in know way defend either member of that Demonic Couple.

[lonevoice]

You didn't answer the question, though. For purposes of the question, you may assume that it can proven that Michael Schiavo is in fact involved for profit in the writing of Felos' book about Terri. By your definition of public personality then, has he "made every reasonable effort to go away"?

[lonevoice]

Yeppers...*sigh*

[Poohbah]

No, he hasn't, if that's the case. Wow. You needed me to tell you that? Do you short out your keyboard often with your own drool?

[Liz]

DEFAMATION, LIBEL AND SLANDER? Sure, but whatever libelous, degrading, insulting, defamatory thing one can say about the Clintons is true.

[Bob J]

Wasn't the first thread enough of a circus?

[NeoCaveman]

1 posted on 10/24/2003 2:50 PM EDT by dubyaismypresident

[NeoCaveman]

Do you short out your keyboard often with your own drool?

Really classy there.

[NeoCaveman]

Wasn't the first thread enough of a circus?

This was posted 5 hours ago. In protest of the first thread.

The answer to bad speech is more speech.

OF course now I am so bored with this all that I wouldn't mind if both dumb threads got nuked.

[Poohbah]

Really classy there.

Well, if the guy couldn't figure the answer to his question unassisted...one does tend to wonder.

[Ronin]

How does that work? Anyone have any details?

[spodefly]

... put on Side 4 of UFO's Strangers in the Night. (Lights out, Rock Bottom...)

Michael Schenker RULES!!! That's not slanderous.

[mrsmith]

"My old lawfirm was Dewey Cheatem and Howe. "

Benn some changes at the old firm.
Cheatem is the only original member of the firm remaining. Dewey sold out to Howe who retired leaving his interest in the firm to his son.
They're still doing business as Howe II, Cheatem P.C. and are finalizing a merger with Moore & Moore Services.

[Republic]

When Clinton was asked what he thought about foreign affairs, he replied: "I don't know, I never had one."

ROFLMAO!!!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Here is my question. Why are there two very public freepers who are trying to stifle our free speach? They shall reamin nameless, but we know who they are. Now I am sure they would sue me for slander for trying to explore the question of why are they so frightened by the free speech process ,and furhter the ability of conservatives to now organize our agenda ?

Why do people who pose as conservatives create obstacles for other conservatives ,who are fighting for a conservative belief?

It makes me wonder why a freeper would try and scare other freepers from exploring theroies, and gathering data on a topic that is most ceratinly newsworthy, political, and indeed front page news.

Anyone left around here who isn't afraid to share their thoughts on this with me?

[NeoCaveman]

Why do people who pose as conservatives create obstacles for other conservatives ,who are fighting for a conservative belief?z

Maybe they are not conservative at all.

[connectthedots]

Kobe Bryant: Public personality by virtue of voluntarily playing professional basketball.

For the purposes of his current legal situation, Kobe would likely not be considered a public person. Being dragged into court, or suing someone else in court, does not make one even a limited purpose public person.

[Poohbah]

For the purposes of his current legal situation, Kobe would likely not be considered a public person. Being dragged into court, or suing someone else in court, does not make one even a limited purpose public person.

Quite correct; but he's ALREADY a public person by dint of his pre-legal-issues celebrity.

But your post also undermines positing Michael Schiavo as a public person.

[lonevoice]

Wow. Now that you've resorted to unprovoked insults, you're right. I'll not ask, nor pay any attention whatsoever to anything you have to say. Buh bye

[connectthedots]

I remember that as a decision handed down 25-30 years ago by the SCOTUS (or the Calif Supreme Court?) when some guy who said something unflattering, but proveably true about another person was found guilty of slander and the court upheld the decision.

Although not common, this is true. If the statements are true it can still be defamation if the defamer leaves out information that would cast the defamed person in a different light than the one actually implied in the defamatory statements.

An example of this might be if you called someone a "killer who took the life of another person". On the surface, and if true, would be defamation if the 'killer' acted clearly in self-defense. While technicaly true, it would still b3e defamation because it would not present a true representation of the facts.

As an aside, the reason prosecutors will rarely, if ever, make comments to the media about specifics of a defendants actions is because prosecutors have no immunity for their statements to the media.