Illegal alien wins defamation case for being called a 'criminal' – set back for 1st Amendment

Examiner.com Chicago ^ | April 20, 2010 | Kimberly Dvorak

[bcsco]

An illegal-alien day laborer who attacked a U.S. photographer at a notorious San Diego day labor site in 2006, was awarded $2,500 in damages for "defamation per se" by Judge Ronald Styn in a non-jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.

[Uncle Chip]

The real problem isn’t the illegals...

You got that right --

[Uncle Chip]

...don’t forget that colleges are allowing illegals in with taxpayer money.

... and that practice supports a large part of the Left and the Democrat Party -- teachers, professors, administrators, the public education bureaucracy who slurp up all that tax money.

[Darren McCarty]

Defamation (Libel and Slander) is fairly clear.

Elements are generally
a. Defamatory language (Language adversely affecting one's reputation. It must be based on specific facts, and express allegations of facts are defamatory).
b. Of or concerning the plaintiff.
c. Publication (communication to somebody besides plaintiff - example, posting on internet)
d. Damages to reputation.

If the matter is of public concern plaintiff must prove falsity and fault.

There are differences in degrees of libel within states, but many (including California it seems) require libel per se which are statements generally (varies slightly between states):

A - Adversely reflect on one's conduct in business or profession.
B - One who has a loathsome disease. Historically, this was leprosy. Today, AIDS applies.
C - One who is guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
D - Unchaste woman (sometimes expanded to all sexual misconduct)

As far as Pelosi goes, Actual Malice is required before she could bring defamation action. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but that matches what I was taught in law school, although I'm not a defamation lawyer.

In this case, the question I have is whether the judge ruled on the term "criminal" as the article states or whether it was referring to a specific felonious assault. If it's the former, that judge has his head up his arse. If it is the latter, it was the right decision if he wasn't there.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

If it is the latter, it was the right decision if he wasn't there.

I think you are referring to whether the accuser was present at the alleged assault, not whether the accuser was present in court?

[ArmstedFragg]

Thank you for attempting to insert a bit of reason into this discussion, even though, if my experience is an example, that will result in you being labeled an illegal alien sympathizer.

The defamatory publication was a document in the form of a wanted flyer that had robbery, assault, and battery across the top of it, and included the plaintiff’s picture. The defendant did not create that document, but he did circulate it.

I agree with your two hypotheticals, and believe the second is actually the issue the case turned on.

[ArmstedFragg]

There's also some insight to be gained by the size of the judgment.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“I don’t miss Cali.”

I miss the ocean. Nothing else.

[2CAVTrooper]

“The real problem isn’t the illegals...”

I agree, it’s the treasoncrats and the wishy-washy RINO’s who support them.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“To: Talisker
The real problem isn’t the illegals...

You got that right — “

No? Pray tell what is?

[stephenjohnbanker]

“I agree, it’s the treasoncrats and the wishy-washy RINO’s who support them.”

It is both.

[DBeers]

This verdict is dumb and celebrating by posting such a leftist victory against an American citizen as well is dumb...

[bcsco]

If you think I’m celebrating this, then you’re dumb.

[Darren McCarty]

Now it's starting to come a little clearer. The examiner article had some major slant to it.

Assuming that what you say here is true, the question is whether the defendant is a publisher. If he emailed it out to places, yes he is, and he's just as liable as the speaker/writer. (most jurisdictions) That is unless the defendants proved that the individual was a robber or assaulted somebody. That goes a lot further than "Stop criminal illegal aliens."

That would also explain the judgment. Probably negligent publishing. A ding, but not like what can happen in some defamation suits, particularly in federal or state circuit courts.

I have a hard time seeing any judge, even a La Raza hack or Cass Sunstein type, ruling a judgment on calling someone a criminal. That would get overturned quickly strictly due to precedent. Robbery accusations are another matter.

[Uncle Chip]

<> Pray tell what is?<>

The politicians and their friends in and out of government that are facilitating all of this, financing and encouraging it because of all the tax money that they get to dispense in their direction —

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2496803/posts?page=122#122

[stephenjohnbanker]

I submit it is both. However, I would have no problem arresting politicians for aiding in the commission a crime ;-)

[DBeers]

I stand corrected. My apologies.

[Uncle Chip]

A recently retired community college administrator in the state of California admitted that they actively recruit illegals for their community colleges in order to fill the classrooms and keep the teachers employed, and the illegals make up such a large percentage of the cc system that if they removed them the system would have to close half of their community campuses.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Thank you for the important thread. FRegards ....

[stephenjohnbanker]

GOOD GOD !!

[Travis McGee]

I got plenty of ocean and rivers around here. (NE FL.) What I miss is the awesome coastal scenery. FL can’t hold a candle. But the rest? They can have it.