this story ticked me off this morning ... PING ...
ping
Thanks FMC. Frequently an initial read of such an article renders an inaccurte conclusion. But I don't believe that to be so in this case. This one, given the reason for not returning the dog, seems to be as terrible no matter how many times one reads it. I wish him well.
My e-mail to the news station:
I viewed your newscast about the woman at issue slandering Mr. Wyrick on a radio station. Are you aware that Kansas has a Criminal Defamation statute?
21-4004
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 40.--CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
21-4004. Criminal defamation. (a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
(c) Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4004; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 187; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 135; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 14; July 1.
If I were you, I'd inquire of local law enforcement authorities as to whether on not they intend to investigate the possible violation of a crime against this Katrina victim. Didn't the woman claim that she checked with FEMA? If she did, then a prosecutor might be able to prove knowledge that the information was false.