|
Would $10 million do it?
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record. Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public figure. Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess the latter to be the case. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com |
Would $10 million do it?
On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote:
As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record. Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public figure. Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess the latter to be the case. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in defamation lawsuits. Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you: Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited" was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote: As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record. Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public figure. Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess the latter to be the case. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in defamation lawsuits. Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you: Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited" was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor. Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said... "Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies will not believe it anyway." |
Would $10 million do it?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote: As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record. Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public figure. Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess the latter to be the case. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in defamation lawsuits. Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you: Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited" was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor. Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said... "Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies will not believe it anyway." It's hard to believe a sweet little girl like you would have enemies. -- Me |
Would $10 million do it?
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily dismissed. This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern lawyering. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being offended. Being compensated for being offended was never a right. Where does it say that? How did these people get this impression? I don't believe I have that right, so why did you say "everyone"? I've been offended thousands of times, and never received a dime. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com |
Would $10 million do it?
In article ,
says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily dismissed. This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern lawyering. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being offended. Being compensated for being offended was never a right. Where does it say that? How did these people get this impression? I don't believe I have that right, so why did you say "everyone"? I've been offended thousands of times, and never received a dime. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com You are taking a generalization as a personl comment. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/30/10 6:53 PM, Steve B wrote: As usual, you speak from your ass. She's not a public figure. Lemme get this straight. She's a government employee of a large agency, and she's speaking in a public forum. Everything she says is recorded or written down. All her actions and directives are a matter of public record. Help me understand what you do not understand about her being a public figure. Or maybe you are just plain stupid. From your eloquent post, I would guess the latter to be the case. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com You obviously know nothing about the term "public figure" in defamation lawsuits. Perhaps you can get someone to explain this to you: Public Figure is a term usually used in the context of libel and defamation actions where the standards of proof are higher if the party claiming defamation is a public figure and therefore has to prove defamatory statements were made with actual malice. Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton (1989) 491 U.S. 657, 666-668. The "public figure" issue is not cut and dried. To begin with, a fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate a person to public figure status, Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 745, and, as to those who are not pervasively involved in public affairs, they must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be considered a "limited purpose" public figure. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 345. Ms. Sherrod was not a public figure when the video tape that was "edited" was made. Further, there's little doubt Breitbart had "actual malice" in mind when he defamed Ms. Sherrod. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm Now, Steve, you can slip back into your stupor. Wow... nice citations. I didn't bother, because as someone once said... "Never explain-- your friends do not need it, and your enemies will not believe it anyway." It's hard to believe a sweet little girl like you would have enemies. -- Me It's hard to imagine someone like you breathing without intervention. |
Would $10 million do it?
"Steve B" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... Posting a video for public consumption of a news worthy event? Sherrod is going to be laughed out of court if the suit isn't summarily dismissed. This will be interesting. You must admit that cases reach trial, and awards are given on things that would have been dismissed with prejudiced plus plain being laughed out of court twenty years ago. Such is modern lawyering. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com Everyone believes that they have the right to be compensated for being offended. Being compensated for being offended was never a right. Where does it say that? How did these people get this impression? I don't believe I have that right, so why did you say "everyone"? I've been offended thousands of times, and never received a dime. Steve visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com What planet are you from? You don't have a clue about libel or slander. |
Would $10 million do it?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com