Justice Watch Support JW "LIBEL AND THE INTERNET" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... LIBEL AND THE INTERNET, Morgan, 15:27:37, 10/04/2000 Huh?, MrsBrady, 15:35:13, 10/04/2000, (#1) Those last 3-4, Holly, 15:46:03, 10/04/2000, (#2) My guess, maxi, 16:14:00, 10/04/2000, (#3) Well, maxi., Holly, 16:23:04, 10/04/2000, (#4) ................................................................... "LIBEL AND THE INTERNET" Posted by Morgan on 15:27:37 10/04/2000 Here are some pertinent excerpts from a paper written by three professors of communication and presented at the Eastern Communication Association annual conference in 1999. http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/comm/libel.htm "Individually, people are libeled when their reputations are damaged in a way that subjects them to ridicule, contempt, shame or disgrace....Courts consider libel a tort, a civil wrong involving one party against another. A person who is libeled can sue in court to seek injunctive relief to stop the spread of libelous material, or if the libel has already occurred and caused damage, seek monetary compensation. In the modern times, most libel cases have involved the news media. News organiztions often find themselves the target of libel suits because of the nature of the news business frequently involves reporting on people who may be implicated in events and activities that are illegal, immoral or unethical. In the past, a person who was libeled had only to prove that they were defamed by something the defendant published or broadcast. Damage was presumed. There were only a limited number of defenses the defendant could invoke, and, consequently, libel law in practice tended to favor the plaintiff. Libel law changed considerably in 1964 with the Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. In New York times, the Court provided legal protection to the media and others to speak out on public issues by making it harder for public officials, people elected to public offices, to recover damages for defamatory statements. Under the New York Times, a public official would now have to prove that defamatory statements were made with 'actual malice', or with knowledge thatt the staement was false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Later, in Curtis Publishing Co v. Butts (1967) the Supreme Court extended the Times ruling to public figures, people of widespread fame or notoriety, so that public plaintiffs would also have to prove that statements were made with actual malice. Together,, the New York Times and Butts imposed constitutional limits on state libel laws by providing the news media with First Amendment protection against lawsuits as long as journalists report in good faith what they believe to be the truth about public officials and figures. In these cases, journalists are protected even when they make mistakes." "The court has also held that once a public figure, individuals retain their public figure status (Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co.)" "OVER THE YEARS THE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED ACCESS TO THE MEDIA AS A FACTOR IN "LIBEL-PROOFING" PEOPLE WHO ATTAIN PUBLIC STATUS. THE SAME MEDIA ATTENTION TO WHICH PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND FIGURES RELINQUISH THEIR ANONYMITY IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO THEM TO RESPOND TO MEDIA CRITICISM." Generally, public officials or figures will not succeed in a libel suit unless they are able to prove actual malice or recKless disregard on the part of the media with clear and convincing proof." "FAIR COMMENT AND CRITCISM IS A MORE COMMON AND ATTRACTIVE DEFENSE TO LIBEL BECAUSE OF THE VALUE THE COURT HAS PLACED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT DEBATE ON PUBLIC ISSUES SHOULD BE 'UNINHIBITED, ROBUST, AND WIDE OPEN' (NEW YORK TIMES AT 52). THE COURT HAS SAID THAT ...UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FALSE IDEA. HOWEVER PERNICIOUS AN OPINION MAY SEEM, WE DEPEND FOR IT'S CORRECTION NOT ON THE CONSCIENCE OF JUDGES AND JURIES, BUT ON THE COMPETITION OF OTHER IDEAS (GERTZ AT 339-40)" [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Huh?" Posted by MrsBrady on 15:35:13 10/04/2000 (Don't mind me, I missed my nap, what else did I miss?) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Those last 3-4" Posted by Holly on 15:46:03 10/04/2000 paragraphs contain alot of interesting information. It seems each time there was a DAILY CAMERA article, Fleet White was asked to respond. And certainly his past record of letter writing would have seemed to suggest or promise that he would. According to the authors, the courts anticipate such responses. Even a brief couple of sentences would have been reasonable. Yes, I agree, a civil libel suit will be a hard sell. If anyone is at work in a court or law office or library, and if a Black's Law Dictionary is handy, Black's has a good definition of public figure. And Fleet fits the definition. And certainly there has been ample opportunity for White to seek releif from the court. Restraining order, injunction - maybe some other relief would apply. He could have requested an injunction against any of the media he now names in his criminal complaint. Why didn't he? And why didn't he seek a restraint of some kind against Nancy? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "My guess" Posted by maxi on 16:14:00 10/04/2000 is that the Whites don't want to precipitate any more problems for Nancy. She is clearly emotionally fragile, and they seem to have known her for a long time -- long enough to care what happens to her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Well, maxi." Posted by Holly on 16:23:04 10/04/2000 That could have been expressed like this -- The sensational claims made by a family friend of many years, are of course, untrue. Our hope is that she will receive the help she needs to regain emotional wellness. Our prayers are with her and her family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]