Comments on: Kelly’s Court On Suing Slanderers – **Open Thread** http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/ Sun, 27 May 2012 07:03:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: jbjd http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226816 jbjd Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:31:01 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226816 It's like what in employment law is now recognized as a "constructive" discharge from a job. Some employers would strip the worker of all responsibilities, relocate to an empty office, and advise other employees to sever communications. Then, when the person 'left' the job and filed for unemployment, the company would object to the claim on the grounds, the person had "quit." In law, as in so many other disciplines,the expression is, "If it looks like a duck..." It’s like what in employment law is now recognized as a “constructive” discharge from a job. Some employers would strip the worker of all responsibilities, relocate to an empty office, and advise other employees to sever communications. Then, when the person ‘left’ the job and filed for unemployment, the company would object to the claim on the grounds, the person had “quit.”

In law, as in so many other disciplines,the expression is, “If it looks like a duck…”

]]> By: Suzie Q http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226765 Suzie Q Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:01:57 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226765 Oh come on! I think 140 years is long enough for something to go from embarrassing to funny :) Oh come on! I think 140 years is long enough for something to go from embarrassing to funny :)

]]> By: Suzie Q http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226762 Suzie Q Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:00:05 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226762 Think about all of the crap Fox News says about President Obama (and used to say about President Clinton) - They'd have to take hypocrisy to the next level to say that others should be sued for what they say about Palin. Think about all of the crap Fox News says about President Obama (and used to say about President Clinton) – They’d have to take hypocrisy to the next level to say that others should be sued for what they say about Palin.

]]> By: justme_kc http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226746 justme_kc Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:47:16 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226746 I think joze would have come to the same conclusion if they had watched the video. there really is no basis for a lawsuit. I think joze would have come to the same conclusion if they had watched the video. there really is no basis for a lawsuit.

]]> By: tango http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226729 tango Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:16:54 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226729 Oh gosh, I missed the goof Obama made commenting about the US purchasing Alaska from Russia: <blockquote>MOSCOW (Reuters) - Visiting U.S. President Barack Obama made a pointed quip Tuesday about Russia's sale of Alaska to the United States in the 19th century. Referring to the long history of Russia-U.S. trade stretching back more than two centuries, Obama told an audience of business people in Moscow: "Along the way, you gave us a pretty good deal on Alaska. Thank you." Czar Alexander II's sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million in gold, around 1.9 cents per acre, was regarded by Russians as a national disgrace -- particularly once it became clear that the province was rich in oil.</blockquote> Oh yah, embarassing the country you're visiting in order to make a little funny is so Presidential. Oh gosh, I missed the goof Obama made commenting about the US purchasing Alaska from Russia:

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Visiting U.S. President Barack Obama made a pointed quip Tuesday about Russia’s sale of Alaska to the United States in the 19th century.
Referring to the long history of Russia-U.S. trade stretching back more than two centuries, Obama told an audience of business people in Moscow:

“Along the way, you gave us a pretty good deal on Alaska. Thank you.”

Czar Alexander II’s sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million in gold, around 1.9 cents per acre, was regarded by Russians as a national disgrace — particularly once it became clear that the province was rich in oil.

Oh yah, embarassing the country you’re visiting in order to make a little funny is so Presidential.

]]> By: Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226728 Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:16:50 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226728 o, GREAT POINT!!! I thought of it this morning while reading USA Today (I'm on vacation, hence the national paper). There was a letter from someone in SC going off on Palin for "quitting" in the middle of her term. Apparently, he doesn't realize that Obama did exactly that and MORE, because he was shirking his duties as a US Senator while out campaigning all of the time (remember the "No, I didn't hold any meetings on NATO, Afghanistan, and European Affairs - I was too busy campaigning!" or something along those lines. Yeah, and PALIN is bum. Got it. (SNARK there...) o, GREAT POINT!!! I thought of it this morning while reading USA Today (I’m on vacation, hence the national paper). There was a letter from someone in SC going off on Palin for “quitting” in the middle of her term. Apparently, he doesn’t realize that Obama did exactly that and MORE, because he was shirking his duties as a US Senator while out campaigning all of the time (remember the “No, I didn’t hold any meetings on NATO, Afghanistan, and European Affairs – I was too busy campaigning!” or something along those lines. Yeah, and PALIN is bum. Got it. (SNARK there…)

]]> By: tango http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226722 tango Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:49:47 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226722 Hey all, if you haven't already, take a look at David Kahanes article "I still Hate You, Sarah Palin" from the National Review: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU= As for whether Sarah Palin could win court cases proving slander might not necessarily be the end game. Just being able to file such suits and drag the other party into court &/or make them pay massive amounts in attorney fees defending themselves might cause them to stop or at least put in language that indicates the information is not proven. Unforunately, even then, Sarah Palin haters will read it as fact, not rumour but at least it's a start. Also, I loved how President Obama called former leader Putin "President Putin". Obama also screwed up the story of how he met his wife while giving a speech in Moscow. He said they met in college when in fact it was at a law firm when both were new attorneys. Geez, how gaffetastic our President is on his Russia trip but alas, he is the smartest President Ever!!! Hey all, if you haven’t already, take a look at David Kahanes article “I still Hate You, Sarah Palin” from the National Review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=

As for whether Sarah Palin could win court cases proving slander might not necessarily be the end game. Just being able to file such suits and drag the other party into court &/or make them pay massive amounts in attorney fees defending themselves might cause them to stop or at least put in language that indicates the information is not proven. Unforunately, even then, Sarah Palin haters will read it as fact, not rumour but at least it’s a start.

Also, I loved how President Obama called former leader Putin “President Putin”. Obama also screwed up the story of how he met his wife while giving a speech in Moscow. He said they met in college when in fact it was at a law firm when both were new attorneys. Geez, how gaffetastic our President is on his Russia trip but alas, he is the smartest President Ever!!!

]]> By: o http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226707 o Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:10:11 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226707 Palin's Lawyer On Greta http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=1414 I loved the part about the “Left Wing Playbook” and the description about how liberals use the system against conservatives to get headlines and force conservatives to spend their own money to defend themselves. That Playbook is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Then at the end he provided a link to Obama (his official blogger) as one source of frivalous ethics complaints from the lower 48 (outside of Alaska). This is going to get good! Palin’s Lawyer On Greta

http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=1414

I loved the part about the “Left Wing Playbook” and the description about how liberals use the system against conservatives to get headlines and force conservatives to spend their own money to defend themselves. That Playbook is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Then at the end he provided a link to Obama (his official blogger) as one source of frivalous ethics complaints from the lower 48 (outside of Alaska). This is going to get good!

]]> By: Kristen http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226701 Kristen Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:51:30 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226701 If I were on a jury I'd rule in favor of Palin. I think it would be very easy to establish a pattern of malice against her. If I were on a jury I’d rule in favor of Palin. I think it would be very easy to establish a pattern of malice against her.

]]> By: sarainitaly http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226699 sarainitaly Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:32:22 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226699 you should have watched the video... you should have watched the video…

]]> By: sarainitaly http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226697 sarainitaly Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:30:35 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226697 I was following that Shannon story/Brad Blog the day that came out, and it was definitely being reported that Shannon had the *scoop* and a charge was coming down. She clearly acted like, in her follow up twitters or tweets or whatever the hell those are, that she KNEW the shoe was dropping. For her to get her panties in a twist now is plain and simple attention seeking. Her press conference was a JOKE, with two people there. There was a commenter here running around the thread saying *wait for it - it is coming, it is coming* ALL because of what Shannon said. I think she is totally liable. Honestly I think she/bradblog cleaned up their stories, because I SWEAR I read that it was a fact on one of those blogs as it was unfolding. Now I can't find it. But, someone did claim it to be fact, and it pointed to Shannon - either she said it, or another site did... I forget. But, I did see it. I was following that Shannon story/Brad Blog the day that came out, and it was definitely being reported that Shannon had the *scoop* and a charge was coming down. She clearly acted like, in her follow up twitters or tweets or whatever the hell those are, that she KNEW the shoe was dropping. For her to get her panties in a twist now is plain and simple attention seeking. Her press conference was a JOKE, with two people there.

There was a commenter here running around the thread saying *wait for it – it is coming, it is coming* ALL because of what Shannon said. I think she is totally liable.

Honestly I think she/bradblog cleaned up their stories, because I SWEAR I read that it was a fact on one of those blogs as it was unfolding. Now I can’t find it. But, someone did claim it to be fact, and it pointed to Shannon – either she said it, or another site did… I forget. But, I did see it.

]]> By: Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226695 Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:00:49 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226695 Hey, jbjd - Sorry for the late response, I was traveling yesterday. I agree with ou completely - I was going by the summation made by two out of the three with a grudging admission by the third attorney, that it would be VERY hard for them to meet the level necessary since the blogger in question hedged her comments so much. I would certainly hope a "reasonable jury" would come to that conclusion, especially with the FBI statement... Hey, jbjd -

Sorry for the late response, I was traveling yesterday.

I agree with ou completely – I was going by the summation made by two out of the three with a grudging admission by the third attorney, that it would be VERY hard for them to meet the level necessary since the blogger in question hedged her comments so much.

I would certainly hope a “reasonable jury” would come to that conclusion, especially with the FBI statement…

]]> By: JozefAL http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226672 JozefAL Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:05:02 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226672 I didn't watch the video so I don't know exactly what the "lawyers" had to say, but the simple fact is that Palin and her lawyers, not matter how much they might want to sue for slander, they would have a next-to-impossible case. Unlike most crimes, slander (and, its written counterpart, libel) must be proved by the "victim"*. The "victim" must also prove a willful intent by the slanderer (or libeler) to defame the "victim". Being in the public eye (such as a celebrity or a politician) makes a slander case even harder for the "victim". The "victim" must prove that his or her reputation has been seriously impugned by the slander in such a way that the average person cannot believe anything but the worst of the "victim". The most successful case was that of Carol Burnett. Burnett had a reputation for not drinking due to a family history that involved parental alcoholism. When the National Enquirer printed photos alleging that Burnett was drunk in public, that threatened to undo Burnett's reputation. (OTOH, Burnett also lost a case where "Family Guy" had used a cartoon image of her--in her charwoman form, such as that used in the opening credits of "The Carol Burnett Show"--cleaning up in a porno shop. The court did agree that the show had probably exceeded boundaries of good taste, but that Burnett was a public figure and the usage fell within the "Fair Use Doctrine" and that the producers and writers of the episode were not deliberately intending any real harm in the usage.) Then again, Liberace sued for "defamation of character" and libel back in the 1950s when a tabloid merely suggested that Liberace was a homosexual. Liberace won his case. (Of course, it proved to be a moot point as just a few decades later, his homosexuality became a matter of record, even before his death.) Palin, as a politician, will have a much harder case. Now, AFTER she officially steps down, if the press continues to go after her, she might have a somewhat easier case though it WILL depend on what she does after leaving office--if she seems to be furthering her political career, she leaves herself open as fair game for attacks. (Even the simple fact that she hasn't been completely forthcoming with her post-gubernatorial plans lends itself to speculation and rumor. And as long as people have a right to speculate and rumor-monger, there's always the possibility of someone writing or saying things that Palin won't like. Unfortunately, there's NO law against speaking ill of people--which is probably good for most people on this blog given some of the very vile comments posted against Obama.) *I use "victim" to refer to the person who claims he or she is being slandered or libeled. I didn’t watch the video so I don’t know exactly what the “lawyers” had to say, but the simple fact is that Palin and her lawyers, not matter how much they might want to sue for slander, they would have a next-to-impossible case.
Unlike most crimes, slander (and, its written counterpart, libel) must be proved by the “victim”*. The “victim” must also prove a willful intent by the slanderer (or libeler) to defame the “victim”. Being in the public eye (such as a celebrity or a politician) makes a slander case even harder for the “victim”. The “victim” must prove that his or her reputation has been seriously impugned by the slander in such a way that the average person cannot believe anything but the worst of the “victim”. The most successful case was that of Carol Burnett. Burnett had a reputation for not drinking due to a family history that involved parental alcoholism. When the National Enquirer printed photos alleging that Burnett was drunk in public, that threatened to undo Burnett’s reputation. (OTOH, Burnett also lost a case where “Family Guy” had used a cartoon image of her–in her charwoman form, such as that used in the opening credits of “The Carol Burnett Show”–cleaning up in a porno shop. The court did agree that the show had probably exceeded boundaries of good taste, but that Burnett was a public figure and the usage fell within the “Fair Use Doctrine” and that the producers and writers of the episode were not deliberately intending any real harm in the usage.) Then again, Liberace sued for “defamation of character” and libel back in the 1950s when a tabloid merely suggested that Liberace was a homosexual. Liberace won his case. (Of course, it proved to be a moot point as just a few decades later, his homosexuality became a matter of record, even before his death.)
Palin, as a politician, will have a much harder case. Now, AFTER she officially steps down, if the press continues to go after her, she might have a somewhat easier case though it WILL depend on what she does after leaving office–if she seems to be furthering her political career, she leaves herself open as fair game for attacks. (Even the simple fact that she hasn’t been completely forthcoming with her post-gubernatorial plans lends itself to speculation and rumor. And as long as people have a right to speculate and rumor-monger, there’s always the possibility of someone writing or saying things that Palin won’t like. Unfortunately, there’s NO law against speaking ill of people–which is probably good for most people on this blog given some of the very vile comments posted against Obama.)

*I use “victim” to refer to the person who claims he or she is being slandered or libeled.

]]> By: TeakWoodKite http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226666 TeakWoodKite Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:07:22 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226666 interesting. interesting.

]]> By: elise http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/27470/kellys-court-on-suing-slanderers-open-thread/#comment-1226664 elise Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:01:02 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=27470#comment-1226664 After the Letterman comment, I searched the FCC website looking for a regulation or statement re liability for suggesting a criminal act against a minor. It's a hard site to navigate, but I wonder if a suit couldn't be brought by Palin or Alex Rodriquez? Letterman in his joke(?), suggested Rodriguez would commit an illegal assault on a minor. Isn't that a defamation of character? After the Letterman comment, I searched the FCC website looking for a regulation or statement re liability for suggesting a criminal act against a minor. It’s a hard site to navigate, but I wonder if a suit couldn’t be brought by Palin or Alex Rodriquez? Letterman in his joke(?), suggested Rodriguez would commit an illegal assault on a minor. Isn’t that a defamation of character?

]]>