I wonder if the kids weren’t wearing MAGA hats if this would have even broke the local news?
I know it’s a challenge but try keeping up. I’m really tired of doing remedial work for you folks.
Doubtful. Idiots protesting is pretty much a daily occurrence in that area as are the inevitable conflicts.
Elements to prevail in a defamation case.
Broadly there are four elements that the plaintiff is required to prove in a defamation lawsuit, whether for libel (a defamatory written statement, for example in a newspaper or other publication) or slander (a defamatory spoken statement.) These are as follows:
The statement, which must be about another person, must be false.
The statement must be ‘published’ to a third party, who cannot also be the person who is being defamed. Publishing in this context does not mean that it must be printed, but purely that the statement has to be ‘made available’ to someone other than the person about whom the statement was made.
If the nature of the statement is ‘of public concern’ the person who has published it must be at least liable in negligence. Public figures who seek to prove that they have been defamed must prove an additional element under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that in publishing the statement the defendant was acting with ‘actual malice’ (by publishing something they know to be a lie) or at least to have a total disregard for whether the statement is true or not.
The person about whom the defamatory statement is made must be ‘damaged’ by the statement. In some states, it is sufficient to establish that the plaintiff suffered ‘mental anguish’ as opposed to ‘damage.’
An actual attorney or anyone who’s ever read up on the subject would know this.
The higher standard for public figures does not apply to these kids, their parents, or the school.
They were tarred and feathered for two days. As long as these kids stay off of Fox News, everyone will forget about them and they will be fine.
This isn’t like the Duke Lacrosse case, which dragged on for months. And I bet even those guys are fine now.
They were trashed in the press for far more than 2 days.
Their reputations are forever trashed and it was all due to media bias and a clear choice was made by them not to verify the story before running with it.
When attorneys of the caliber of Alan Dershowitz say they have a strong case I have every reason to believe it’s true. Dershowitz has no bias here and nothing to gain or lose coming down on either side of the case other than of course the satisfaction being right when they prevail or settle for a huge amount.
All of the media talking heads that ran with the story and slandered them showed absolute actual malice in their statements and social media posts as well so they better plan on getting their checkbooks out as well because the boys’ attorney will be coming after them individually next.
Is that how cases like this are determined? By broadly citing elements from the internet? Under what statute will the elements be determined in this case? Will this be federal defamation statute? Actual attorney’s know that the elements are defined by the actual statute not “broadly defined” elements from a “find a lawyer” web site.
Read the filings by their attorney.
I have read the filings, hence my questions to you regarding the strength of their case.
Then post them and let’s discuss them.
I can’t post what is not there… Let’s start simply… Which state/federal laws will be used to evaluate this case? You made the claim in the start of this discussion that the defamation did not take place in Kentucky nor did the defamation. So under what federal/state law is the case being filed?
Then email the attorney and let us know what you find out.
Wait a minute… You are making the claim that they have a strong case… On what basis are you making that claim if you can’t cite the federal/state statute they violated?
I really tire of repeating myself. Try reading above a few posts.
Will this be tried using a federal statute or a state statute… Should be an easy question to answer… Are you suggesting all have the same elements?
What part of this do you fail to understand?
I really tire of repeating myself. Try reading above a few posts.
I fail to understand why you are avoiding answering the question… Will this be tried using Kentucky defamation law? Federal defamation? Enlighten us…
I’m neither bringing the case nor hearing it. The filings cite the federal district court of KY as the proper venue on mulitiple grounds and cite the applicable statutes.
The judge must feel it’s the proper venue since it wasn’t summarily rejected.
After listening to Dershowitz’ discuss the case and state he felt they would likely prevail I’m convinced they have a case as he has no bias and certainly no reason to argue their side of the case being just unless he believes it to be true.
I’ll certainly take his argument over anything you’ve stated on the subject.
Why would the court rule on the matter when the defendant has not responded?
This Dershowitz interview?
Dershowitz said that Sandmann has a “significant” chance of winning the case or getting The Post to settle, but his lawyers made a serious legal mistake by mentioning President Trump and the broader media in the lawsuit.
“They’d be much better off not making that argument and simply saying, ‘We represent one guy, a kid, his reputation has been hurt. This is not about Donald Trump, this is not about trying to chill the media,’” Dershowtiz said. “A serious tactical blunder by the lawyers.”
He said Sandmann should seriously consider hiring a different lawyer who’s more interested in presenting the specifics of Sandmann’s case, as opposed to a general case against the media.
“If this were merely about this young man being hurt, they’d have a much better chance of winning.”
The court isn’t required to wait for the respondent to respond. If the case has no merit and/or no place in his jurisdiction it can be summarily thrown out.
