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.
I’ve been thinking about this. In the eyes of the law, why is the standard different for public figures?
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.
I’ve been thinking about this. In the eyes of the law, why is the standard different for public figures?
Im sure you could get in an advanced tort class at Southeren Law if you register early enough!!!!
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.
I’ve been thinking about this. In the eyes of the law, why is the standard different for public figures?
Because public figures do enough to defame themselves that it is hard to assign liability to anyone else?
A more serious answer, at least part of it, would be that as a public figure an individual has a better shot at being able to defend themselves to the public and as such there is less of a chance that the “defamation” from and individual would have an impact.
You and I (and the people who start rumors) know that accusations stick.
Senator Vitter will forever be associated with diaper sex no matter how much he defends himself. So, I don’t think that’s a good reason to hold them to a different standard.
You and I (and the people who start rumors) know that accusations stick.
Senator Vitter will forever be associated with diaper sex no matter how much he defends himself. So, I don’t think that’s a good reason to hold them to a different standard.
Exactly, but we Republicans dont really care about rumors sticking or else we wouldnt call President Ohblahblahblah muslem!!!!
According to Louisiana Revised Statute 1440.3, it is illegal to “electronically communicate to another and knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct, criminal conduct, electronically mailed or any person in the family or household with the intent to threaten, terrify or harass.”
Sheriff’s Investigator Scott Tucker said Sledge posted around 100 remarks about the sheriff’s office on the Press-Herald web site from February 2009 to present.
“Most of these were harassing different deputies,” Tucker said. “He accused them of criminal acts that were not true.”
In response to a story headlined in the Minden Press-Herald as “Webster man arrested for meth,” and posted on the newspaper’s web site, Sledge, under user name TJ1001, wrote on February 23, 2010:
“The north end deputies spend their shifts sitting at the substation on the computer playing, waiting on dispatch to call them out! Drive by anytime you will see at least two sheriffs vehicles parked there everyday! And the cad team they are getting federal moneys for are on I-20 catching out of state people passing thru with their drugs!! Baker and his cohorts are either sitting at the courthouse surfing the internet, or out riding around with minden pd detectives eating and going to wal-mart, or smiths boats!! None of which is doing webster citizens any good!! Sexton had a pretty good crew when he started, but as the old saying goes \"the inmates have taken over the prison\” Sexton is now a lame duck!!”
The next day, under the same user name, Sledge posted on the message board:
A California appeals court ruled this week that threatening posts made by readers of a website are not protected free speech, allowing a case charging the posters with hate crimes and defamation to proceed.
The case raises fundamental questions about cyberbullying and the line between online speech and hate crimes.
In her dissenting opinion, Judge Frances Rothschild said the appellate court ruling “alters the legal landscape to the severe detriment of First Amendment rights.”
The case involves a teen identified as “D.C.” in court documents, who launched a website in 2005 when he was 15 to promote his pursuit of an acting and singing career. According to court documents, the student has recorded an album and played a leading role (.pdf) in an unnamed feature film, using the pseudonym “Danny Alexander.”
Fellow students at his private high school, Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles, posted derogatory comments on his site, mocking his perceived sexual orientation and making hostile statements that threatened him with bodily harm, such as “######, I’m going to kill you,” and “I want to rip out your ####### heart and feed it to you.” ....
Facts of the Case:
Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.
Question:
Did Alabama’s libel law, by not requiring Sullivan to prove that an advertisement personally harmed him and dismissing the same as untruthful due to factual errors, unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
Conclusion:
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan’s case collapsed.
The ad that Flynt put in his magazine about Falwell was never meant to be seen as truthful statements. The diaper rumor is circulated as “the truth”. Isn’t that different? And isn’t that a “reckless disregard of their truth or falsity” which is malice. And if he lost the election wouldn’t that be damage?
I’m just curious because I’m trying to figure out how the whole freedom of speech issue works out in court.
The ad that Flynt put in his magazine about Falwell was never meant to be seen as truthful statements. The diaper rumor is circulated as “the truth”. Isn’t that different? And isn’t that a “reckless disregard of their truth or falsity” which is malice. And if he lost the election wouldn’t that be damage?
I’m just curious because I’m trying to figure out how the whole freedom of speech issue works out in court.
The Supreme Court has done some work further defining “reckless disregard:” it means the speaker acts with a “high degree of awareness of their probable falsity,” or when the publisher “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.”
Now, Vitter might be able to find someone he can sue for this. But who would that be? Probably one of his own constituents? No newspapers or TV stations have repeated these rumors that I know of. Maybe a few national liberal groups or publications looking to score points against the Republicans? Good luck with that.
And what kind of case would he have, anyway? Surely he’s more damaged by the revelation that he was calling a madam- how do you separate that part of it from the diaper rumors when determining his damages?
Also, political hyperbole, even when ostensibly fact-based, will often be held to be non-defamatory. These diaper “rumors” are just as much a fanciful way to invoke the many Republican sex scandals, and point out “family-values” political hypocrisy, as they are genuine assertions of “fact.”
So, he could bring a lawsuit only to find it ultimately dismissed.
And another problem he’d have: he brings a suit, he will be DEPOSED. To defend the case, the defense will ask him “so, you didn’t do this with a hooker? Well then, what DID you do with a hooker? How many times did you call hookers? Which ones? Where are they?” And on and on and on. I really don’t think he wants to face that.
So while he has a theoretical lawsuit he could bring, it faces big legal hurdles. Even more than that, it faces practical hurdles.
You have a good mind for this, CC. I think you should go to law school.
