Posted on 06/18/2007 12:19:13 PM PDT by Sleeping Freeper
I would make such a dramatic scene that the entertainment news shows like CNN and FNC would cover the case like Paris Hilton goes to prison.
I would use the money from that lawsuit to go after the 88. The 88 would have private eyes following them around, going through their garbage, and hacking their computers. I would turn them against each other and then bankrupt them all, and since this is fantasy and I have flair for the dramatic, it would be like the movie Se7en, each one destroyed using their own Marxist ideology against them. They would rue the day they called out the lynch mob on me. Revenge is a dish best served cold.
It’s great to let my imagination run. I feel so much better now.
Who among us hasn’t spread gossip, repeated what we heard, and regretted it when we learned our “information” was false? Can anyone among you look me in the eye and tell me that you never took part in a conversation where false rumors were spread and you never failed to tamp them down or even took part in the speculation?
It is a lapse, it is a failure, it might even be a sin. I am not a theologian. But is every lapse, every failure, to be punishable by law? Look into your own hearts and ask yourselves: Do I want to be judged in court for every time I have failed or fallen short of the mark? Can I claim to be the person so free of sin that I can cast the first stone?
These 88 professors have spent most of their lives focusing on their respective fields. Fields from mathematics to Latin to history to literature to divinity to anthropology. That has made them experts. It has not made them superhuman.
They are people, citizens, just like you and I. Their ability to solve a mathematical proof or identify a primate skull does not hold them to a higher standard of conduct any more than the ability to sweat a pipe or rebuild a carburetor or slaughter a hog or build a fence.
They are citizens. While they don’t make their living the same way we do, they are nonetheless like us. And before you pass judgment on them for their ill-thought words, ask yourself whether you have spoken or written anything foolish, ever, in your life, and think about how you would want twelve of your fellow citizens, your neighbors, to judge you for that.
The right to free speech includes the right to be wrong. We should question and speculate and debate. Democracy is made of that. If you punish these people for their opinion, best buy some sweaters — because if you haven’t felt the chill yet, you will.
Bingo, I think I've found the key difference between your approach and mine. I'm arguing law and philosophy. You're arguing emotion and jury nullification. The evidence? No rational sentence needs more than one mark of punctuation at the end. Few need an exclamation point. None needs more than one.
It’s like trying to read Peggy Noonan. It is very hard to read, emotionless and flat, unless you move your lips a bit and pretend you are reading aloud.
Then the words jump off the page... echo around the room... dance directly through your eardrum...... and go straight into the deepest recesses of your consciousness.
PS. Suggest re-reading BearCubs #140.
It is the crux. PPS Jury Nullification?!?!?! I'm arguning the right to not be lied about... and punish those who do! Be Well!
BC:"My defense rests solely on the truth of what I said."
Wrong. To avoid charges of slander or libel, you do not have to prove that your statements are true. You don't even have to prove that you didn't know they were false. The prosecution/plaintiff must prove that you acted deliberately and maliciously. No intent, no harm, no case.
PPS Jury Nullification?!?!?!
Yes. In your summations on this thread, you have played to the emotions of our imaginary jury, and you have offered everything but a coherent legal argument. The only way you could possibly win that case is if the jury ignored the law and voted on feelings. In a phrase, jury nullification.
I'm arguning the right to not be lied about...
There is no such right.
I could say, MindBender26, your mother has a bald head and a purple mustache. I don't know whether it's true or not. I don't care and I don't have to care.
If my lies cause you harm, you can sue me. Show how my lies harmed you. Specifically.
Be Well!
You too.
Are you citing NY Times v. Somebody? I have forgotten where that is now. Do we need “intent” or is reckless disregard enough? Certainly we don’t need anything akin to “criminal intent.”
Are you arguing the issue of malice? I certainly don’t have to show malice, and even if I have to show “intent,” or malice, I’ll bet I can get at least three of the 88 to testify about meetings, conversations, etc, where phrases such as “let’s get these bastards” were uttered.
re: malice. These three are not public figures, because, even though they were subject to much media attention, they did not seek it or any public attention.
I see the 88 as a house of cards, probably about 40 of them ready to throw everyone else to the wolves to get themselves off (most probably with p/o spouses), 40 “true believers” and 7 or 8 who had no idea what they were signing.
Re: specific harm. In a civil rights case, I’ll know it’s OTW, but I could argue “tainted something.” :~)
I would take it on contingency, with costs covered. Wouldn’t you?
Where are all the scinece, math and engineering professors? I guess they are too busy teaching their students, grading papers, running labs, etc.
oops, I missed a couple of math and physics profs. Well, engineering has a clean record.
Yes, they are.
Wrong. Slander and libel do not have to be deliberate or malicious to be actionable. Mere negligence is enough. In a society where there is a presumption of innocence, declaring someone guilty before a trial is at the least negligent.
NYT v. Sullivan. Either malice or negligence is sufficient, but actual malice is required for a public figure. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know to what degree the Sullivan ruling has been tweaked over the years -- usually, by the time you get close to a credible libel suit, you're probably on the wrong side of a few ethical rules, and I don't tread that close.
re: malice. These three are not public figures, because, even though they were subject to much media attention, they did not seek it or any public attention.
The court in Sullivan ruled that someone could be considered a public figure by virtue of being involved in public events, even if their fame (or notoriety) was unsought. The plaintiff/respondent in the case was an Alabama sheriff accused in an ad in the Times of mistreating civil rights marchers. The Court found that while Sullivan would not normally be considered a public figure for purposes of the Times' national audience, his involvement in the civil rights unrest made him one.
Meanwhile, I found the actual ad -- or at least a Google-cached HTML version of a PDF that's been taken down. Read the ad itself. There is one reference to an allegation of rape, and one reference to "March 13." The three students are not referred to by name, nor are they even referred to as three students or as lacrosse players. I don't see any libel there.
The ad was part of, and fed into, an overall climate of racial unrest, and was an attempt to spin the case into part of a larger narrative -- one in which the guilt of the three was assumed, or at least their actual guilt or innocence was dismissed as unimportant. And that shouldn't be forgiven or forgotten. But frankly I don't see libel here. If, is I believe, there's nothing ipso facto lieblous about the content itself, then the court need not consider negligence or malice at all.
Are you arguing the issue of malice? I certainly don’t have to show malice, and even if I have to show “intent,” or malice, I’ll bet I can get at least three of the 88 to testify about meetings, conversations, etc, where phrases such as “let’s get these bastards” were uttered.
I'd tend to doubt it; if they had the goal of "getting these bastards," the ad is awfully soft, even for academics.
I would take it on contingency, with costs covered. Wouldn’t you?
Don't think so. Slim chance of a win, even slimmer chance of collecting any serious money, it'd be time consuming, and after reading the ad itself, I don't see anything that outrages me enough to work for free on principle.
The deep pockets belong to Duke -- the profs didn't just sign as individuals, but as representatives of their academic departments (at the bottom of the ad, the departments are listed as supporting the ad). It seems likely, to me, that the profs were acting in an official capacity, and that ad was probably part of the settlement with the university.
There is no issue of “intent” here nor is there a need to be. It’s negligence where non-public figures are concerned, malice where public figures are concerned.
These are NOT public figures. The Alabama sheriff was found to be a public figure because he had done things to make himself a p/f, even through they were not directly related to the case at hand.
The hook here was that he had stood for election. That will almost always make you a p/f.
So malice is not required, but (I’ll bet) it’s there through admissions of some members of the 88. I bet they even lawyered the ad, but not well enough.
When I say not well enough, remember that my main cause of action is not going to be libel or slander but “false light.” There doesn’t have to be any direct incorrect statements to create a false light matter. Simply by “tainting the atmosphere” I can sustain false light.
Not only can I argue “tainting the atmosphere” but I can clearly argue that was the intent of the whole ad.
That's a question to be litigated. I don't think it's clear-cut, and I don't think we can settle it here. It's another of the many legal questions in bringing the case(s), and another axis of uncertainty. IANAL, but I don't see a strong case.
When I say not well enough, remember that my main cause of action is not going to be libel or slander but “false light.” There doesn’t have to be any direct incorrect statements to create a false light matter. Simply by “tainting the atmosphere” I can sustain false light.
That is not a cause of action with which I'm familiar. But the main point of the ad, taken in its own words, is that race relations in Durham were tinder-dry long before the fire was touched off by the spark of the lacrosse rape claim. The reaction of the community, the media and commentators nationwide, in the mainstream media and in the blogophere, proves out the claim. It is an accurate assessment whether the carges were true or, as they turned out to be, false.
In a similar vein, many millions of words have been written about how white and black folks reacted differently to the OJ Simpson trial. That is fact. We reacted differently. Observing that fact does not depend on the fact that OJ is as guilty as twenty pounds of homemade sin.
I have to say that, to me, the issues became clearer after I read the ad. The gist of the ad is that the rape claim shone a light on the elephant in the room -- and regardless of whether the claim was true or false, that was an accurate assessment. If I'd written the ad, I would have used stronger, more specific language to point out that the presumption of innocence stands and we should reach no conclusions ahead of the facts, but I think I would only have changed one or two sentences.
Not only can I argue “tainting the atmosphere” but I can clearly argue that was the intent of the whole ad.
I disagree. I believe the intent was to play up the problem of racism, and that you would have an uphill battle to prove that it was in any way intended to specifically target the three lacrosse players, which it did not name and barely mentioned.
"You" are wrong. You cannot recover punitive damages without an award of compensatory damages. Further, before a case can even get to trial you will have to demonstrate to the judge(via a summary judgment motion) that a question of fact exists on whether you have suffered actual damages. Actual damages are an element of any tort claim and they must be proved in order for the case to be won.
Twue, oh so twue, however.......
My compensatory damages are my “litte bit pregnant.” If I can show some comp damages, I am then free to seek my punative damages at vidtually any amounnt.
Granted, some jurisdictions don’t like outragious ratios of comp v. punative damages, ($1200 in comp damages and $2,000,000 in punative) or the $6,000,000,000 verdict for just one plaintiff, against Ford (or was it GM?) but in this case, I’m going to get both.
I’m not going get much in comp here, but remember, I going to settle many of these out. We’re going to play “Pin the Tail on the Last Defendant” and get enough to make it well worth my while on my middle group of settlers.
Then, if I hit the big “Verdicto” on my last set of defendants, my “clients” have won really big.
I see your strategy, but I have grave doubts that the actions of the 88 are truly slander or defamation. I think their statements were a matter of opinion and not a statement of a knowing or negligent falsehood. I do not think they are actionable. I agree they are despicable, just not actionable.
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.