Posted on 10/25/2003 9:46:41 AM PDT by kattracks
Judge Greer is blind, so he cannot actually see Terri responding to her parents.
Judge Greer allowed a woman in another case to try therapy. In all the years this case has been before him, why not allow limited therapy in Terri's case also?
Click to scroll to commentary.
DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity
Third District Court of Appeal ^ | March 28, 2003 | COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
Posted on 10/25/2003 12:22 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Next, in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783, 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986), the court found that at least where a media defendant is concerned, an actionable statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false by the plaintiff before there can be liability under state defamation law. The Hepps court limited its holding to cases involving media defendants and left open the question of the standard for non-media private defendants raising statements of public concern about public figures. n9 This is precisely the issue presented here. That is, this case raises the question of the applicable [*480] standard for an alleged defamed public official by a private defendant on matters of great public concern.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 779 n.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the absence of any direct precedent from either the United States Supreme Court or Supreme Court of Florida on this issue, I believe that at the very minimum, the standard set forth in the New York Times [**21] line of cases, requiring actual malice, must govern. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 n.6 ("prior to Hepps, . . . where public official or public figure plaintiffs were involved, 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, I believe that footnote 6 of the majority's opinion is misplaced. The ultimate issue here is not whether Horan's statements were false, but rather whether Horan knew or "recklessly disregarded" that his statements were false. See Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 806. Thus, it is not necessary, or even desirable, for Barnes to subpoena and depose the attorneys and sitting judges in Monroe County. n10 Moreover, the results of the "opinion poll," embraced by the majority, could not reliably discern the truth or falsity of Horan's assertions regarding Monroe County's judges' and lawyers' opinions of Barnes as a lawyer and/or candidate. See, e.g., Ollman v. Evans, 242 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 750 F.2d 970, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a community's opinion of a plaintiff's stature [**22] in the community is incapable of being adjudicated with any expectation of accuracy). (Bork, J., concurring). Accordingly, I believe that such discovery is impermissible and should not be allowed to take place.
Barnes v. Horan, 841 So. 2d 472, 479-480 (Fla. App. , 2002)
==================
Foremost, we think Hepps [ Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S. Ct. 1558, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1986)] stands for the proposition that a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved. (footnote omitted) Thus, unlike the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar," the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin," would not be actionable. Hepps ensures that a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection (footnote omitted).
Next, the Bresler-Letter Carriers-Falwell [**13] line of cases provide protection of statements that cannot "reasonably (be) interpreted as stating actual facts" about an individual. Falwell, 485 U.S., at 50. This provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. See id., at 53-55.
The New York Times-Butts and Gertz culpability requirements further ensure that debate on public issues remains "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270. Thus, HN6where a statement of "opinion" on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Similarly, where such a statement involves a private figure on a matter of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the false connotations were made with some level of fault as required by Gertz.
Milkovich, 110 S. Ct. at 2707. Thus, in the instant case [**14] assuming medical costs and insurance are a subject of public concern, which we concede they are, if the statements are capable of being proved false, they are not protected.
Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla. App. , 1990)
Excerpted - click for full article ^
Source: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d01-2472.pdf
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.
Not necessarily. My husband is legally blind, has not driven for 10 years, but has about 10 degrees of vision correctable to 20-25...he would be able to see the videos just fine. The designation "legally blind" doesn't always mean totally blind.
Doesn't sound at all like some folks here have been describing him, huh?
These two items are contradicted by the video which clearly shows her to be brain damaged, but not vegetative, and the belief by many that she could be taught to swallow if rehabilitation had not been denied by her husband. This whole case reeks of decaying slime and any objective observer who looks at the video or studies statements by her parents or her caregivers would conclude there is another side that is being ignored by the court and the press. With the unresolved issues of her condition being debated, why not err on the side of caution and let her live in the care of her willing and loving parents? It's obvious that national anti-life and media forces are determined to treat this innocent women with less compassion than they give a convicted, cold-blooded killer. A very sad commentary on the state of our society today.
My point was that Judge Greer might be able to see well enough to view a video while being legally blind.
Is admissability (is that a word ;-) an issue here? I thought that only applied to criminal trials. I don't think there's a jury involved here...just a hearing in front of a judge. I too cannot understand the rulings in this case.
Nope, the Ministers of Propaganda in the Culture of Death mainstream media never paint proponents of their Culture of Death in a bad light, no matter how radical they are in trying to murder the innocent and defenseless.
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.