DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity

Third District Court of Appeal ^ | March 28, 2003 | COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT

[Notwithstanding]

If George Jones is still alive and John Smith has never even been in the same state as George, you can not post "John Smith killed George Jones" without subjecting yourself to a defamation action.

If George Jones is still alive but John Smith is purposefully seeking to have George's respirator turned off - and the case is widely reported in the news and all three branches of government have taken action on the issue - then you can post "John Smith is a murdering SOB" on a forum that notes on every page that all posts are opinions of the authors - without fear of losing any defamation claim.

[First_Salute]

Thank you for bothering to look it up.

I'd like to add ---

The only things that I fear, are God, my parents' and our forebears' trust that we preserve the liberty that they have sacrificed for us and our children, and that without a thoughtful effort to maintain the foundations of our liberty, we will be compelled by sloppy, self-important, and self-absorbed government officials and their servitude, to settle the matter on the field of battle --- because government is failing to adhere to the limits set forth lawfully by the people.

[Notwithstanding]

Please ping.

[freedumb2003]

Already posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1007384/posts

with like 1600 posts.

[Notwithstanding]

no, this is not the bar association drivel that palpatine posted - this is actual 2003 case law from a Florida appellate court

[mrsmith]

This subject hasn't had such play here since the early days of "Bat" Jack Thompson.

I'm not worried, but given the obvious malice (fervor) of many posters, and their attempts to sound authoritative whether they are or not I'd like to see the dispute between property (reputation) and free speech on the internet addressed by the courts.

[ckca]

now that the truth of this MATTER HAS BEEN EXPOSED, THE FRAUDULENT THREAD POSTED BY PALPATINE SHOULD BE DELETED!

[honeygrl]

No, I don't think it should be deleted. It seems a lot of people on the thread needed to get some things off their chests and they all got to do that. Gotta vent the steam or people will explode. Plus, it was just a fun thread, even though the original poster had questionable intentions.

[IncPen]

I notice that the Dark Lord has yet to answer my questions.

Sure made some people angry.

< snicker >

[honeygrl]

I think he went AWOL.

[Rebelbase]

"I notice that the Dark Lord has yet to answer my questions. "

It's Saturday, get a grip.

[IncPen]

It's Saturday, get a grip.

Go read the thread.

He rode it for 5+ hours, and fled when the going got tough.

Hasn't been back since. Check it out.

[SauronOfMordor]

I notice that the Dark Lord has yet to answer my questions.

You rang? Or was that some other Dark Lord?

In any event, I agree with Notwithstanding that referring to the hubbie as wanting to murder his wife in this context is an accurate observation

[IncPen]

You rang? Or was that some other Dark Lord?

Lord of the Weasels

King of Florida Law and Unacknowledged Aliases...

Whereabouts currently unknown.

Presumably changing screen names...

again....

[Don Joe]

...the New York Times rule already required a showing of falsity before liability could result." (citations omitted)).

Since actual malice requires more than the mere publication of a falsity...

If I'm reading that correctly, it would seem to me that if a person believes that someone is trying to commit a heinous act, and thus expresses an opinion as to his character, based on that belief, that there would be no malice involved, since "malice" would inherently require that the speaker know that his statements were false.

So, if this is correct, if you believe that Joe Blow is trying to steal your neighbor's car, and you say "Joe Blow is trying to be a car thief", you cannot be acting out of malice, even if Joe Blow is not trying to steal the car.

To be acting out of malice (if I understand this correctly), you would have to know that he is not trying to steal the car, and then make the claim even though you know it's false.

Is my understanding correct?

[Notwithstanding]

I would add a caveat: what you say is largely true but only
IF Joe Blow was a public figure or a private figure involved in a matter of public concern.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Thanks for posting this.

[HiTech RedNeck]

or a private figure involved in a matter of public concern.

Which MS is now, if not then, due to his challenge to Terri's Law.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Would Terri's situation be considered a matter of public concern even before Terri's Law was passed? The matter of Mike's pushing the court decision okaying Terri's death creating a bad precedent and a blot on the conscience of the nation? This was, and is, an issue bigger than Terri.