Posted on 11/19/2021 7:16:10 PM PST by 11th_VA
Damn, you’re right. I know and like that song, and didn’t make the connection. Well done.
Have you considered what being a “public figure” might entail?
“I reject the idea that merely being accused of a crime makes you a public figure.”
I agree.
Is It Legal to Sue the President of the United States?
Specific paragraph is at the end of the article:
"It’s actually a 1997 Supreme Court case, Clinton v. Jones, that clarifies the issue of civil suits. Paula Jones, a former state employee, accused President Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court ruled that any kind of sovereign immunity does not apply to “unofficial conduct,” meaning anything not directly related to his actions as president."
And subject to a defamation. Since FJB is not a media puke it is not required to prove that he know it to be false, just that FJB did not know it to be true and that the statement was a smear.
“A public figure is one who had assumed a role of special prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies. It can also be involuntary if someone has gained fame or notoriety.”
The monkey wrench in the theory above is the age of the person involved. A minor is a limited “person”, and while there certainly are public figures under 18, I’d say in this case his elevation to a public figure was… “involuntary”.
If the above was not true, why do courts and the media take great pains to hide the identities of “alleged” -or even convicted- lawbreakers under 18?
Biden and any member of Congress can basically say whatever they want no matter how outrageous while in office and the only possible punishment would be censure and/or impeachment. Biden was a private citizen and Rittenhouse was 17 at the times in question here.
“Rittenhouse was, by then, a “public figure” for the purposes of defamation law,”
I think that’s wrong. A private person does not become a public figure just because he’s in the news.
Under tort laws of defamation , one prima facie type of defamation is “falsely accusing someone of being a felon.” Such defamation publicly paints the victim as a felon without evidence of any crime. This is considered to be an irreparable harm to his/her reputation from which the defamed cannot clear himself/herself.
Kyle Rittenhouse was falsely painted as a murderer.
You should NEVER be placed in a situation to carry the burden to disprove a false charge against you.
Our legal system places the burden on the accuser to PROVE you did wrong.
You can’t, for example, publicly call a woman a whore and place her in the impossible position of having to disprove the defamation.
How can ANYONE prove they DID NOT DO SOMETHING WRONG?
Age isn’t magic protection. Bristol Palin was 17 when she was run through the ringer by the media. Lee Boyd Malvo was 16 and certainly didn’t have his identity protected.
Whether one is a public figure, (regardless of whether it’s voluntary or involuntary) is fact dependent, but Rittenhouse meets that definition.
I don’t like the entire actual malice doctrine. New York Times v. Sullivan should be overruled.
Wendy Rittenhouse Puts Joe Biden On Notice: “Our lawyers are gonna handle that”
November 15, 2021
Sandman was not a public figure for the purposes of defamation law because he took no actions that made him a public figure, all the actions that made him a public figure were done by others, while he literally just stood there.
I assume suing Biden would not work because he is immune now and later will be either dead or 100% demented.
Here are a few entries in the ALR regarding public figure as it relates to criminal defendants:
——————————-
For purposes of defamation claim, individuals who have been accused or convicted of crimes may be classified as public figures. Skakel v. Grace, 5 F. Supp. 3d 199, 42 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1437 (D. Conn. 2014).
In action by woman who alleged she was defamed in magazine article, court did not err in determining that woman was limited-purpose public figure with respect to article at issue, where woman had been convicted of tax evasion with regard to thousands of dollars she had received but not reported as income from wealthy widower, where her trial had generated considerable amount of local publicity, as well as some national publicity, in which woman had participated, where after her conviction and while imprisoned before her conviction was overturned woman had met writer with whom she agreed to work on book, where focus of magazine article was how woman had proceeded to take writer “on frightening journey,” how woman’s relationship with writer soured, and how she made demands and threats, where article addressed at length woman’s tax-evasion conviction and its subsequent reversal, where it also delved into writer’s interest in writing proposed book, quoting writer as being suspicious of government’s interest in pursuing tax-evasion charges, where only after reading one-third of article could reader find discussion on relationship between woman and writer, where writer’s proposed book was directly related to tax controversy, and where woman’s interest in proposed book stemmed from desire to present her side of tax case and clear up her image. Harris v Quadracci (1995, CA7 Wis) 48 F3d 247, 23 Media L R 1296.
Stepfather of murdered child was a limited purpose public figure, for purposes of his defamation action alleging that he was falsely charged with the murders of his stepson and two other children in a letter posted on a singing group’s website and statements made by a singer at a rally, and thus he was required to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; issues involved were matters of public concern, and stepfather publicly advocated his lack of involvement in the murders well before defendants made the alleged defamatory statements, he had full access to the media, and he attempted to influence public opinion and the authorities. Hobbs v. Pasdar, 682 F. Supp. 2d 909 (E.D. Ark. 2009).
Report on national cable television news network allegedly suggesting that family of child murder victim could have been involved in murder involved a matter of public concern, and thus actual malice standard applied to family’s defamation action against network under Colorado law; murder investigation had been subject to unprecedented media attention. Ramsey v. Fox News Network, L.L.C., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Colo. 2005).
Under District of Columbia law, prisoner who brought defamation action against legal publisher was a “limited-purpose public figure” for First Amendment purposes; there was public controversy concerning shootout upon which prisoner’s murder convictions were based, as well as about underlying issues of taxation and federal government power, as the press extensively covered shootout, all stages of prisoner’s trial, and prisoner’s association with anti-tax and anti-government movements, prisoner assumed a public role in the controversy when he used his access to the press to promote his cause and worked to maintain his place in the spotlight, giving extensive interviews for a documentary, publishing a book about his case, and maintaining a personal website, and publisher’s allegedly defamatory report about prisoner’s conviction and his petition to have his sentence vacated related to his role in the controversy. U.S. Const. Amend. 1. Kahl v. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 856 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (applying District of Columbia law).
Inmate, who brought action for defamation and other torts, was a limited purpose public figure, and was therefore required to clearly and convincingly prove “actual malice” on part of newspaper and author, who wrote newspaper articles on topic of online “dating” by incarcerated felons which featured inmate; articles addressed matters of public concern, inmate, who placed personal advertisement on Web site, voluntarily injected himself into particular public controversy, and inmate was highlighted in articles because his advertisement was particularly misleading and controversial. LaChance v. Boston Herald, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 942 N.E.2d 185 (2011).
Subject in book depicting activities of a group of criminals was a limited-purpose public figure and, thus, was required to prove actual malice to recover any damages in his defamation suit against book’s author, given subject’s admissions with respect to his prior criminal convictions and public records regarding his prior criminal involvement. Berkery v. Estate of Stuart, 412 N.J. Super. 76, 988 A.2d 1201 (App. Div. 2010).
Subject of newspaper articles about subject’s attempts to stop author from publishing a book that named subject as a member of a criminal gang and subject’s defamation action against author was a limited-purpose public figure and, thus, was required to prove actual malice to recover any damages in his defamation action against writer of articles, publisher of newspaper, and owner of publisher, given subject’s admissions with respect to his prior criminal convictions and public records regarding his prior criminal involvement. Berkery v. Kinney, 936 A.2d 1010 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007).
WHY NOT?
He made the statements long before he was selected by the Dominion machines.
Yes, have you?
I already knew.
Biden is not immune... you ought to read the other posts in this thread. Biden called the kid a white supremacist and made other derogatory statements that put Rittenhouse in danger before he was elected. Nick Sandman who suffered a thousandth of what Rittenhouse did... reportedly got hundreds of millions of dollars. Suing Biden will be one more thing that will make Biden look like an oaf. Break out the popcorn... he is guilty as sin
I don’t care what court decided it wrongly. It is unjust. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) decided that something not for sale and that never crossed state lines is still interstate commerce. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) allows government to seize property from one private entity and give it to another call call it “public use.” And on and on.
Bill Clinton is a public figure. His spouse, political career, the college he graduated from, his political views are all well known by the public. He willingly and deliberately became a public figure. Other than his name and the fact that he shot three people, nothing was known about Rittenhouse before the riots in Kenosha. It’s manifestly unjust to raise the bar toward proving defamation just because the news media singled you out.
You are preaching to the choir. I think Sullivan should be overruled.
So do Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-1063_new_gfbi.pdf#page=4
But until it’s reversed, the law is what it is, as unjust as it might be.
but he has a very nice estate
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.