Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
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.

123 posted on 04/20/2010 1:48:04 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (I don't look for leaders. I follow my own path, my way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: Darren McCarty
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?

124 posted on 04/20/2010 2:04:27 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Pat Caddell: Democrats are drinking kool-aid in a political Jonestown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

To: Darren McCarty
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.

125 posted on 04/20/2010 2:05:47 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

To: Darren McCarty
There's also some insight to be gained by the size of the judgment.
126 posted on 04/20/2010 2:10:38 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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