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 defendants 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.
aka, "New Republican for Life"
jchild initiated the thread because several people had asked to have the entire information about the incidnet put together.
It is a thread that is incredible -- but not unlike most of the threads one finds at DU -- hate-filled, bitter, intolerant, and paranoid.
jchild's initial post has what must be a family picture of the Parlock family that apparently one "perceptive DUer" found on the Internet. jchild then shows a cropped version of the family photograph showing only one of Parlock's sons, and he puits next to it a cropped picture of the incident at the airport, showing only the guy in the back-turned baseball cap and the union t-shirt. Voila, he says. See the resemblance? They must be the same person.
One of the moderators over there commends jchild for his "great job".
Another person says that child services needs to be brought in.
jchild posts a reponse to another person, and in it he says that Parlock's son must have attacked his sister.
You'll have to excuse me now. After typing this sort of stuff, I need to go take a good, long shower with lots of anti-bacterial soap.
Yeah, and the topper of this whole "fraud" is that they got the little girl to cry on cue. Right.
A self-portrait, no doubt
Can we start calling the DU'ers "Brown Shirts"?
Well the DUmmies aren't going to persuade anyone except themselves on this. The picture will say it all in terms of affect on any undecided person. I would imagine they realize how bad this looks which is why they are creating whatever lies and stories on this. Also why the Union apologized, which is highly unusual no matter what their goons do. Union Goons are at every Kerry rally it seems to me to tackle any would be protester.
I think absent something really very unusaul that demands protesting, and I mean really unusual, I think its just plain stupid and rude for protesters and hecklers from either side to show up at a rally for the other. Everyone should have a right to have a rally and say what they have to say in peace without "protestors" trying to interfere.
Gary
I mean no offense, but it's a fester of trolls, and a pustule of democrats.
An ooze of liberals.
A zit of RINOs
A scabee of socialists
Also, the daughter was on this same thread. She posted the following...
To: babble-on
"DU" is degrading enough don'tcha think?
Well observed.
Keep reaching for that rainbow, folks.
The rainbow is the sign of gay rights advocates.
So this is eerily appropos.
Libs really tick me off.
Methinks the DU'rs need to invest in tin-foil pyjamas! ;-)
How pathetic. On the other hand, if true, how funny. Hee Hee. That would explain why the father didn't deck the punk with the backwards hat. Oh well. Time will sort it all out.
ping
That condom is life size too for that DUmmie.
I, too, mean no offense, but isn't it a hemorrhoid of Democrats?
I wonder what the odds are on whether Sixty Minutes will pick up the claims and run with it.
My thoughts exactly...with the exception that there are some good, solid Freepers who post over there.
Is there really mucbh difference between a lib and a tick?
Both suck.
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.