BUST 'EM!!!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:35 am

I'm in the dark on this one...please either shine some light here, or email me off site...

krick · Post by **krick** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:52 am

Speaking of the "Emp", I noticed that he has a new eBay identity again.

5_star_guitars

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:04 am

While the seller is an obvious 'jerk', I don't think RIC could sue him for libel with success.

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.

Federal law also protects most ISP and like sites from libel suits, although an individual may be sued for certain subject matter provided on the Internet.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:58 am

Stan, if you're a lawyer or have first-hand knowledge of such a case, I will bow to your greater knowledge in the matter. However, I was watching a program last night (it may have been on Court TV) about Larry Flint and the libel suit that Jerry Falwell filed against Flint and Hustler over a defamatory parody of Falwell. That one went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was in favor of Flint only because it was an obvious parody/satire (and labelled as such). I'm still of the opinion that there are legal limits to what one can say about another in print (libel) or speech (slander) beyond just the distortion of facts.

BTW, I love your phrase "false statement of fact" - brilliant!

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:27 am

No, not a lawyer (far from it), Gary, but I do have some knowledge on it from my demented career in broadcasting, and because my closest friend is a lawyer. I have this lawyer friend of mine...
I recall the Falwell case, but not the particulars. If the parody had made undeniable, false claims about Falwell, then he might have had a leg to stand on. A good example of slander right now might be the Rosie O'Donnell v. The Donald on-air, childish bickering. Rosie said the Donald filed for bankruptcy a number of times. The Donald says he may sue, and he might have some substance, if he indeed, never filed for personal bankruptcy. Her remarks could be construed as defamation of character. But name-calling is just asinine behavior.

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:30 am

While interesting, this thread is looking like it will need to be moved to The Others.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:19 pm

Sorry about that, Peter.

BTW, Gary, false statement of fact, is a legal term, not mine.

False pretense
n. Law.
False representation of fact or circumstance, calculated to mislead.

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:52 pm

Not at all Stan. It was simply the nature of the thread. "BUST EM", surely set the tone.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:06 pm

Ummm,,,mea culpa???

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:28 pm

You meant well, Paul!

Stan, it figures that it would be "legalese"!

The following statement is true. The previous statement is false. "Does not compute ..."

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:49 pm

None of us has a crystal ball Paul, least of all myself. Who knows this could end up with a bit of a Seinfeldian theme before we know it.