|
DarkSteven -> RE: NBC apologizes (11/25/2011 4:29:55 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Not no more fargle.
The media can lie legally, that has been established in the supreme court. Libel laws still exist. So if the news lies and I make it a point to make it VERY public and damage their commercial interests they will sue me and I will run out of money before they do, because if the case isn't dismissed quickly the party with the deeper pockets will win. Care to try it ? Tell the truth and if the libel case is summarily dismissed you win. If not, you lose - everything.
So technically it's not true.
T^T
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Libel and slander laws are very straightforward.
If you can prove your case you will win a settlement.
And your legal fees will come from that payment.
It is only if you file a frivolous suit that you will be liable.
Wrong.
Libel and slander laws could be written in a straightforward manner. That is WRITTEN law. CASE law is how the laws are APPLIED, and it's messy.
To win a libel/slander case, three things must be proven:
1. That the statement was believed incorrect when it was made.
2. That the untruth was maliciously intended.
3. That the victim suffered real damage (I believe it must be quantifiable as well).
If you ever check actual decisions (I have, as I was once slandered and suffered quantifiable damage as a consequence), you will find that the standards are set almost impossibly high.
That bit about how legal fees are to be paid to the wronged party if he or she wins? I very much doubt that that is written in the law. Generally speaking, if someone wins a case, they are allowed to file a SECOND civil suit to recover legal fees, but it's not an automatic win, and if they lose, they'll be out two sets of legal fees.
Finally, you have confused a "frivolous" suit (which means that the court considers that there is no merit whatsoever) and a losing suit, in which a case might have merit but is not strong enough to win.
Edited to add: In this case, Bachmann would have a hard time proving she was harmed by this song. If her poll numbers suddenly dropped right afterward, she might have a case but since her chance of winning the GOP nod is small, the actual harm would be slight.
Stepping away from all that, it was classless for Fallon to do that, simply on the grounds that guests should be treated with at least some degree of respect. But I don't consider legal means of countering this to be appropriate. Much better would be conservatives making a list of the companies that advertise on the show and suggesting fellow conservatives boycott their products. THAT'S how to get heard.
|
|
|
|
