While I am a fan of some of Sir Elton John’s music, I must confess that there are no duck suits or ping pong paddles at our house; my example was a mere hypothetical one.
One that hopefully isolates a legal point.
Again, Hardy, let’s assume that roux kept posting that statement about me. Could I sue to get him to stop? If so, under what law?
Article 2315 of the LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE.
Every act whatever of man that causes
damage to another obliges him by whose
fault it happened to repair it.
S/Hardy Parkerson, J.D.
Tulane Law, Class of 1966
Louisiana Lawyer in Exile - Naples, Italy
While I am a fan of some of Sir Elton John’s music, I must confess that there are no duck suits or ping pong paddles at our house; my example was a mere hypothetical one.
One that hopefully isolates a legal point.
Again, Hardy, let’s assume that roux kept posting that statement about me. Could I sue to get him to stop? If so, under what law?
Article 2315 of the LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE.
Every act whatever of man that causes
damage to another obliges him by whose
fault it happened to repair it.
S/Hardy Parkerson, J.D.
Tulane Law, Class of 1966
Louisiana Lawyer in Exile - Naples, Italy
So you are saying that Article 2315 allows you to file frivolous lawsuits and to harass people who hurt your feelings?????
The Court stated the elements of a prima facie case of defamation in Fitzgerald v. Tucker, 737 So.2d 706, 715 (La., 1999):
A cause of action for defamation arises out of a violation of Civil Code article 2315. Vicknair v. Daily States Pub. Co., 153 La. 677, 96 So. 529 (1923); Ferdinand F. Stone, 12 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise Tort Doctrine § 176(c), at 227 (1977). Defamation involves the invasion of a person’s interest in his or her reputation and good name. Sassone v. Elder, 92-1856 (La.10/18/93), 626 So.2d 345, 350 (citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 111 (5th ed.1984)). In order to prevail in a defamation action, a plaintiff must necessarily prove four elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault (negligence or greater) oil the part of the publisher; and (4) resulting injury.Trentecosta v. Beck, 96-2388 (La.10/21/97), 703 So.2d 552, 559 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1977)); see Cangelosi v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets, 390 So.2d 196, 198 (La.1980) (considering falsity as a fifth and separate element). In other words, a plaintiff must prove “`that the defendant, with actual malice or other fault, published a false statement with defamatory words which caused plaintiff damages.’” Trentecosta, 703 So.2d at 559 (quoting Sassone, 626 So.2d at 350). (emphasis added)
Of course there are exceptions and nuances, but that’s the general test. If those four elements are not shown, then the case will be dismissed by summary judgment prior to trial. And at least from what I’ve seen so far, it appears there remains quite a ways to go to satisify that test.
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
Doubtful. Vitter would have to come to court with “clean hands”. Seeing that he already admitted to having admitted to serious sins involving prostitutes, he doesn’t come in the door with clean hands at all.
And it is probably very likely that his serious sins involving prostitutes has already caused him “X” amount of harm. If he lost the Senate race and wanted to sue for defamation, he would likely have to show that any diaper rumor caused him additional harm beyond X and that without the diaper rumor that he would have won.
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
Doubtful. Vitter would have to come to court with “clean hands”. Seeing that he already admitted to having admitted to serious sins involving prostitutes, he doesn’t come in the door with clean hands at all.
And it is probably very likely that his serious sins involving prostitutes has already caused him “X” amount of harm. If he lost the Senate race and wanted to sue for defamation, he would likely have to show that any diaper rumor caused him additional harm beyond X and that without the diaper rumor that he would have won.
Good news, DZ. I quickly glanced over your answer and just assumed you were Troll since I had asked him the question. You sounded very lawyerly.
I should have known this was not Troll’s answer however; Troll answers questions with questions. (smiley)
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
So, according to what you just posted, if David Vitter were to lose his Senate election, he could sue and probably win a defamation case against the originators of the diaper rumor (assuming it’s false)?
Doubtful. Vitter would have to come to court with “clean hands”. Seeing that he already admitted to having admitted to serious sins involving prostitutes, he doesn’t come in the door with clean hands at all.
And it is probably very likely that his serious sins involving prostitutes has already caused him “X” amount of harm. If he lost the Senate race and wanted to sue for defamation, he would likely have to show that any diaper rumor caused him additional harm beyond X and that without the diaper rumor that he would have won.
Good news, DZ. I quickly glanced over your answer and just assumed you were Troll since I had asked him the question. You sounded very lawyerly.
I should have known this was not Troll’s answer however; Troll answers questions with questions. (smiley)
WOW, I did not read this before answering your question with a question on another thread (and even going as far as acknowledging that I did it). LOL!!!!!
In so doing, I try to lead you towards the answer but allow you to come to your own conclusion, like here and in post #22 of this thread.
It doesn’t seem, however, that you fully picked up on the clue that I gave you. There is a different standard for defamation for public figures than for the rest of us. If Larry Flynt had published that ad about your or me, the result would have been different.
Clearly, Senator Vitter is a public figure. But is Hardy? When he was running for governor, sure he was. But is he now? I really don’t know.
You know, the old joke is that the answer to every legal question is, “it depends.” While I think that calling someone an “idiot” is probably almost never, if ever, going to give rise to a valid legal claim- especially as regards me, heck it’s probably true- in the right set of facts it could be a close question. Here is a case that discussed such an issue:
The trial court found that “[t]he defamatory communications by Fred Meyer’s employees included that Robel was a `b****,’ a `c****,’ a `f***** b****,’ a `f****** c***,’ a `snitch,’ a `squealer,’ and/or a `liar,’ and the comment that `only idiots demo.’” CP at 1337 (Finding of Fact 63). The Court of Appeals reasonably rejected as nonactionable opinions the vulgar names Robel’s co-workers called her. Robel, 103 Wash.App. at 92, 10 P.3d 1104 (noting that “some statements ... cannot reasonably be understood to be meant literally and seriously and are obviously mere vituperation and abuse” (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 566, cmt. e (1977))). The Court of Appeals concluded that the remaining words—"snitch," “squealer,” “liar,” and “idiot"—were arguably defamatory statements of fact but that Robel’s claim failed because the trial court had made no finding of damages arising from the defamation claim.
We conclude, however, that none of the allegedly defamatory words could carry defamatory meaning in this case. The vulgarisms, along with the word “idiot,” were plainly abusive words not intended to be taken literally as statements of fact. To determine whether the words “snitch,” “squealer,” and “liar” should likewise be viewed as nonactionable opinions, we consider the “totality of the circumstances” surrounding those statements: “To determine whether a statement is nonactionable, a court should consider at least (1) the medium and context in which the statement was published, (2) the audience to whom it was published, and (3) whether the statement implies undisclosed facts.” Dunlap v. Wayne, 105 Wash.2d 529, 539, 716 P.2d 842 (1986) (regarding as a nonactionable opinion, not a statement of fact, opposing counsel’s statement to plaintiff’s employer that plaintiff had been soliciting a kickback).
Applying the Dunlap court’s three-factor test and its reasoning, we hold as a matter of law that, as with the vulgarisms and the word “idiot,” the words “snitch,” “squealer,” and “liar” likewise constituted nonactionable opinions. Regarding the first factor, medium and context, at issue here were oral statements made in circumstances and places that invited exaggeration and personal opinion. Those engaging in the name-calling were Robel’s co-workers and superiors—individuals who were potentially interested in discrediting her complaints to management about questionable food handling practices in the deli or who were personally interested in ostracizing Robel in the workplace.
So while the courts don’t view the question as ridiculous, they are probably not going to find that calling someone an “idiot” is a tort. Judges know that people get mad, people are petty, they say rude things, they blow off steam while trying to work or have a discussion, and if every such instance ended in a lawsuit we’d have no time for anything else.
This is probably especially true in political discussions- people get mad at each other and denounce each other all the time. Someone calling you an “idiot” in a political discussion hasn’t really committed a tort. And Hardy has probably been guilty of goading people along as much as anyone.
Still, while I just have to ignore a bunch of Hardy’s threads, and he’s said some things I really disagree with- especially some racial remarks- I hope he’ll keep posting here, and not redirect his energy to suing folks.
The middle finger is one of the most common insulting gestures in the United States. The finger, which is used to convey a wide range of emotions, is visible on streets and highways, in schools, shopping malls, and sporting events, in courts and execution chambers, in advertisements and on magazine covers, and even on the hallowed floors of legislatures. Despite its ubiquity, however, a number of recent cases demonstrate that those who use the middle finger in public run the risk of being stopped, arrested, prosecuted, fined, and even incarcerated under disorderly conduct or breach-of-peace statutes and ordinances.
