quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

When's Slate been liberal, when I see critiques of Obama in there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Wow.

Do you ever make sense?

I understand that you do not think it is acceptable to question any of the dogma your party spits out.

Not everyone else feels that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation.

He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation.

Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs.

Next case

E

She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit.

She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd.

She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

Read the placards he inserted at the beginning of the video. That's proof of actual malice.

Defamation against a public person is almost impossible to win in the US but Breitbart better settle this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Wow.

Do you ever make sense?

I understand that you do not think it is acceptable to question any of the dogma your party spits out.

Not everyone else feels that way.

Jeffff, I was satirizing the post to which I was responding. Granted it's hard to interpret.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 

What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation.

He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation.

Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs.

Next case

E

She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit.

She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd.

She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

Read the placards he inserted at the beginning of the video. That's proof of actual malice.

Defamation against a public person is almost impossible to win in the US but Breitbart better settle this one.

I read them. Not even close to showing malice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 

What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.

Yeah, but I think that's going to be very hard to prove. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am unable to think of how they'd manage to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I don't see how she can win a libel suit. Even if she does prove malice, it'll be almost impossible to prove significant damage when she got another comparable job offer within about 15 minutes. 

What about all of those people that watched only this video and now perceive her as being a racist?

She was damaged.

Yeah, but I think that's going to be very hard to prove. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am unable to think of how they'd manage to do it.

She lost her job because of this. the rest is irrelevant. Her damages are lost wages and the usual defamation damages of harm to her reputation. A jury could easily give her triple actual damages plus costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Your opinions will mean nothing to me unless you convince me your source is God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

From here it looks like defamation by libel, actionable per se (that is without any harm or loss having been incurred) and Breitbart certainly knew or ought to have known that the publication might have a damaging effect on the person featured regardless of any intention for it have been about the organisation.

He might have had a defence in that he was merely reproducing someone else's publication except that he edited it to such an extent that on any reasonable analysis it became a distinct piece - something also supported by the purposeful edit to establish the point he wished to make against the organisation.

Exemplary damages + plaintiff's costs.

Next case

E

She is a public official. Almost impossible to win a libel suit.

She has to prove both significant damages and malice. From the very first posting he made it clear that he was not accusing her of being racist, that he was critical of the reaction of the crowd.

She will lose or get a token settlement to save legal fees.

Read the placards he inserted at the beginning of the video. That's proof of actual malice.

Defamation against a public person is almost impossible to win in the US but Breitbart better settle this one.

I read them. Not even close to showing malice.

Legally since they are a knowing lie that is malice. The tricky part of proving a defamation suit involving a public person is proving that the claims are both untrue and the defendant knew they were untrue. Those placards achieve that standard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcor64

Looks like a slam-dunk to me. I don't think the "public person" standard will apply here, btw. As I understand it, that applies if the person is an elected official.

Personally, this whole situation provides a humongous rationale for tightening up the libel laws. We don't have to become the UK, but there's way too many lies and distortions out there.

Falcor

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Legally since they are a knowing lie that is malice. The tricky part of proving a defamation suit involving a public person is proving that the claims are both untrue and the defendant knew they were untrue. Those placards achieve that standard.

Even in the context of the entire speech, which AB says he didnt have in the beginnign, those "placards" are not lies. She cleary sees everything through a racial prism. For a court to conclude that her current attitude toward race relations is different enough from ABs interpretation isnt going to happen. And he obviously wont let it go to a jury, where anything can happen, as this board attests to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

I would bank there are very few people that share wibur's ideology. I know it only takes one. But I would be willing to take my chances that the wilburs of this world would be immediately excused as a potential jurist.

I think she has a decent shot at prevailing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falcor64

Looks like a slam-dunk to me. I don't think the "public person" standard will apply here, btw. As I understand it, that applies if the person is an elected official.

Personally, this whole situation provides a humongous rationale for tightening up the libel laws. We don't have to become the UK, but there's way too many lies and distortions out there.

Falcor