Posted on 09/17/2004 12:57:11 PM PDT by aft_lizard
Dear DU trolls, today you guys have started an unsubstantiated rumor about a Mr Parlock and his family, I would like for you trolls to read this info packet about slander and libel and defamation of character:
http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html
What is Libel?
Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form, while slander refers to oral statements and gestures. The term defamation is often used to encompass both libel and slander.
In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must have been published to at least one other person (other than the subject of the statement) and must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. That is, those hearing or reading the statement must identify it specifically with the plaintiff.
The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.
The defamatory statement must also have been made with fault. The extent of the fault depends primarily on the status of the plaintiff. Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement. In general, in most jurisdictions private individuals must show only that the defendant was negligent, that he failed to act with due care in the situation.
A defamation claim will likely fail if any of these elements are not met.
While on many of these issues the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the primary defenses to a defamation claim are that the statements are true, are not statements of fact, or are privileged. Some defamatory statements may be protected by privilege, meaning that in certain circumstances the interest in communicating a statement outweighs the interest in protecting reputation. For example, most, if not all, jurisdictions recognize a privilege for fair reports of government and judicial proceedings, and for reports of misconduct to the proper authorities or to those who share a common interest (such as within a family or an association). Privileges do vary somewhat from state to state in their scope and requirements. They often apply to non-media defendants to the same degree as to media defendants.
A successful defamation plaintiff may be entitled to a jury award of money damages. In some instances, the plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages for particularly reprehensible conduct. The parties to the claim are entitled to appeal and cases are carefully scrutinized on review to protect the defendant’s First Amendment rights.
Defamation claims can be brought by living persons and legal entities such as corporations, unincorporated businesses, associations and unions that are considered "persons" under the law. Governmental entities cannot maintain actions for libel or slander, although a government official can bring suit for statements about the official individually.
Libel and slander are civil claims, but a handful of the states recognize an action for criminal defamation. Prosecutions are rare, especially against the media.
Under the American federal law system, defamation claims are largely governed by state law, subject to the limitations imposed by the free speech and press provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court and other courts. While the elements of defamation are largely identical throughout the country, because defamation is a matter of state law there can be important differences on substantive and procedural details of the claim in the separate jurisdictions. And as a result of the application of First Amendment requirements to the claims, the specific elements as well as the burdens of proof with respect to those elements may be different depending upon whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure, whether the defendant is media or non-media, and the character of the statement(s) at issue.
What were accusations?
That Mr. Parlock staged the incident; other ignoramusi have said the creep who ripped up the sign was one of Parlock's older sons.
That Parlock and his family staged the incident that resulted in his sign being torn and others,
yea, really sickening
they are putting all this bs together and emailing it off to the news media
saying it was all planned and that guy that ripped the sign was his older son blah blah blah
Those DUmmies are probably mostly lawyers anyway, they'll know how to talk to the "tyrants in black robes" and get his case thrown out in any circumstance < cynicism on >
I think the DU need better tin foil hats.
Lame. They're trying to replicate the success with the CBS memos. Keep reaching for that rainbow, folks.
I hope that we can get Mr. Parlock's son and the thug together. (If you get my drift) To dispel this rumor. (slap!)
Who is the little boy on the right side of the picture with is fist clenched?
Looks like he's really mad and ready to come the damsel's rescue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219046/posts
So, the original incident wasn't scummy enough? Now they try to slime the guy and his little girl, after attacking them? Just when you think people can sink no lower...
I think the plural of Ignoramus is Ingnorami, but I'm not positive.
If ignorami congregate, the group is referred to a Pantload.
A Murder of Crows, a School of Fish, a Pantload of Ignorami.
yes, it is easy to get little girls to cry on cue with genuine sadness in thier faces.
I do not think it could possibly have been staged. The emotions on their faces looked so genuine.
DUmmie bump
The dopey DU contention is that the union goon who ripped up her sign is actually her older brother.
Their "proof" is a family picture that shows a brother they claim is a dead ringer for the union goon.
They look about as much alike as Patrick Ewing and Itzhak Perlman do.
The nut jobs at DU are saying that the Union thug that attacked Parlock and his daughter is actually Parlocks son in disguise.
They've gotten desperate. I'd say that they've gone off the deep end, but they did that years ago.
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.