I keep hoping that someone, somewhere will tell us just how stupid we are.
Promises, promises.

"dan" dancytronatyahoo.com wrote in message
...
You don't have to show damages if it is libel per se

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

I think saying there is a conspirousy to kill children in order to make
money selling kayaks would probably fit.

--dan

"Charles Pezeshki" wrote in message
...
in article , Brian Nystrom at

wrote on 8/21/03 3:45 AM:

True, but isn't "defamation of character" also illegal. He's calling
us
all
"murderers" and likening us to Nazis and terrorists. Surely that's not
acceptable.

--
Regards

Brian

HI Folks,

A point of clarification for all those that believe that the U.S. Legal
system is so messed up that anyone can sue anyone and win.

It isn't.

Anyone can FILE a suit-- but if the suit is frivolous, the lawyer that
filed
the suit can be sanctioned. There has to be some basis, provable to a
judge
(who decides whether sanctions are warranted) for any given lawsuit.

There are two types of procedure in U.S. Law-- civil and criminal.

Such claims as defamation of character or libel are civil procedure--
which
means that a citizen (represented by an attorney) can file a complaint.
But
you have no complaint if you can't show DAMAGES. DAMAGES are usually
considered monetary in form-- you have to have compensatable damages to
get
anywhere.

Criminal charges must be filed by the appropriate prosecuting attorney,
and
follow a whole 'nother process.

You may say your character is defamed, but if you cannot show
harm/damages,
you have no case. Just because you can sue someone for anything does
not
mean you can WIN. And it doesn't mean that your case won't be dismissed
INSTANTANEOUSLY.

An unpopular opinion in public, currently-- largely because the public
does
not realize that civil procedure is the only refuge of the weak against
large corporations-- but our legal system, while FAR from perfect, has
many
admirable characteristics. "Tort reform"-- meaning a "free lunch" for
the
rich, is trumpeted by the rich using tools such as the fabled 'McDonalds
lawsuit' and the recent lawsuit against fatty foods. Reality is that
without tort law, we would all be getting sliced and diced in auto
accidents, we'd still have lots of unsafe home products, products would
be
labelled deceptively, and on and on. Why the public seems so bound and
determined to give up their one major tool against the powerful is
BEYOND
me.

As far as name-calling goes, who cares what Timmy says? I mean, really?

Chuck