Was OJ a murderer?...The determining factor as to whether or not it is a FACT that OJ committed murder is not what his public record says but whether or not he committed the murder.
Public records could be wrong or incomplete...if a tree falls in the forest, does it really fall if there is no public record of it?
I don't think there is anyone here who is making acusations that Wierwille was convicted in a court of law...is there?
If my next door neighbor walked over and punched me in the mouth...and I did nothing legally about it...there would be no public record of it...BUT it would still be a fact the he punched me in the mouth...of course, it wouldn't be a fact to WhiteDove because there would be no public record of it and he would be demanding proof that it indeed happened.
This type of thinking seems counterproductive and circular to me.
Sorry I think the law is a determining factor you can take up your complaint with those who write them but until then it is not ok to libel others .
Someone seems to want to continue this discussion....
Nothing to discuss unless you have some new legal opinion, it is pretty clear that one can not libel a person either dead or alive. Truth is a defense, as Mark pointed out with the following condition..... which is to be determined by the jury. Note it does not state to be determined by WW or the GreaseSpot Cafe. until such time as you met your burdon of proof and have a jury determine otherwise it is libel toeither by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.
“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
Either that, or someone wants to pretend this discussion didn't happen.
Shame he is not alive to take to court--but then again--there is more than an earthly court he will face.
I agree it is ,but that does not give anyone the right to change the law ,because they want it to read differently. Until there is legal decision the law remains clear. You want to meet the burdon of truth as defence then meet the conditions. The law does not say because you believe it to be so that's close enough.
Man talk about a redefinition of the meaning of a word.
Ones statement is only considered libel if it is untrue, at which time it is a prosecutable offense. Otherwise it is often referred to as *telling the OTHER side of the story* which is what we do here at Greasespot.
I truly hope that you are right Geisha. It seems so unfair for someone at the end of their life to walk away from all of the suffering caused and show up at judgement day saying....Hey it was the grace administration, I was free to do as I pleased.
To bad so sad all of you whiners, I am born again of incorruptible seed, I am untouchable :(
Nothing to discuss unless you have some new legal opinion, it is pretty clear that one can not libel a person either dead or alive.
I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled.
"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual."
(Scroll up.)
Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable.
That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it.
It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it.
Truth is a defense, as Mark pointed out with the following condition..... which is to be determined by the jury.
What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system,
to be used IN the legal system.
In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the
court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are
meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their
"argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side,
and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision.
That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability-
all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts.
That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know
the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury.
Context, context, context....
Note it does not state to be determined by WW or the GreaseSpot Cafe. until such time as you met your burdon of proof and have a jury determine otherwise it is libel to[/color] either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR.
Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE.
That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be
inflammatory AND FALSE.
Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city
youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL.
If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated
by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE.
If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects
that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie-
which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead-
he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember?
Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel.
That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each
law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead-
whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling.
Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually...
I agree it is ,but that does not give anyone the right to change the law ,because they want it to read differently. Until there is legal decision the law remains clear. You want to meet the burdon of truth as defence then meet the conditions. The law does not say because you believe it to be so that's close enough.
That is true.
And the laws state-and any law reference states-
that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE.
If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel.
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,
an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation,
by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization)
open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person,
but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person
making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. "
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses."
Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel:
Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases)
2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words
specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt"
twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a
molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue,
shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable
if they tried to claim this?
=================================
Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony.
Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor
honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason.
Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows
vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both.
In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to
dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies.
That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair.
=============
As Mark Clarke said:
"There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"
This discussion concerns EYEWITNESSES, and is NOT a discussion of legal definitions.
We HAVE such a discussion in an adjoining thread-which you're currently participating in.
Misusing the term "libel" in this discussion-especially after it's been brought to your attention
that it's off-topic here- thus counterproductive- and you've been participating in the discussion
OF "libel" seems to indicate you're attempting to take this discussion off-topic.
That's contrary to the spirit and intent of the GSC. Please stop.
"These rules are meant to encourage civil, courteous discussion. They are not meant to stifle your freedom of expression. We want everyone to have a voice here; please use yours wisely and considerately."
Contrary to the fact that you would like to see the point buried because so far you have no evidence to counter what the law actually says, it is very much a part of this discussion. An eyewitness can state what they observed not what is factual. When you state emphatically that someone is a murderer ,thief , rapist in public forum that is no longer an opinion or an alleged charge which is what an eyewitness testimony is alleged until it is proven in a court of law. When eyewitnesses claim to go beyond the realm of eyewitness ,to matter of fact statements which has occurred then it becomes libel. As such one needs to point out that the eyewitness has gone beyond the boundaries of their testimony and as such is misrepresenting the truth. The law is quite clear that one can not libel a person they may however go through due process of law and a jury will determine if there was truth or malice in the accusation. If one wishes to change their speech to personal opinion or alleged charges then you would be correct it would have no place in the conversation, but one can not make unethical charges and then fault others for pointing out that they were so.
"Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
CASE CLOSED!! VP FALLS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE BY ANY STRETCH
I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled.
Apparently some people think otherwise ......
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual."
Really???
Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005)
(Scroll up.)
Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable.
That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it.
It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it.
Lies on the internet are prosecutable, more and more every day cases come to trial.
‘Any publication, whether spoken, written or otherwise, to a third person which is false and has
the affect of adversely affecting another’s reputation.’
Types of defamation
Libel and slander distinguish the law of defamation where it may take the different forms of
publication either in transient form by the spoken word, gestures (slander); and where publication
exists in a permanent form such as the written word, printed, or broadcast over the television,
radio or indeed the Internet (a combination of broadcast and printed form).
It is an important note that in respect of libel there is no requirement to show that there has
been suffered any loss or injury as a result of the statement. Libel is actionable per se.
What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system,
to be used IN the legal system.
In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the
court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are
meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their
"argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side,
and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision.
That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability-
all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts.
That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know
the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury.
Context, context, context....
And in court people who lie about others in a public forum are drug into court, why because they libeled another when it is illegal and then this course of action takes place to determine such
In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero.
The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR.
Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE.
That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be
inflammatory AND FALSE.
Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city
youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL.
If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated
by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE.
If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects
that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie-
which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead-
he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember?
Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel.
That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each
law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead-
whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling.
And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero.
Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually...
That is true.
And the laws state-and any law reference states-
that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE.
If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel.
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,
an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation,
by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization)
open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person,
but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person
making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. "
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses."
Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel:
Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases)
2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words
specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt"
twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a
molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue,
shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable
if they tried to claim this?
Failure to take action is not part of what determins libel it is not a criteria in any definition Is it your premise that it is fine to break laws because no one see's you or holds you accountable to them? Is that really what you want to argue is ok?
=================================
Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony.
Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor
honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason.
Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows
vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both.
In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to
dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies.
That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair.
It is not academic when one is breaking the laws. It is criminal
=============
As Mark Clarke said:
"There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
To continue to libel people that have no such charge of crime hurts people as well and????
You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"
I never said that there was not personal testimony what I said was there has been no hard factual evidence.
When it comes to a court of law WD is correct. There I said it. An eyewitnessin a court of law is not proof, it is one perspective which might present evidence upon questioning and cross examination
Everyone has a right to know the truth, not one side of the view when you arrive at thetruth through our due process of law then I'll have no disagreement as I don't with the case of Mr. Mart*nd*le At present you have no truth only a one sided view.
"Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
CASE CLOSED!! VP FALLS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE BY ANY STRETCH
You assume actual malice is not provable I'd say otherwise looking at some of the posts here dripping with it , it would be a hard act to sell. CASE OPEN.........
You assume actual malice is not provable I'd say otherwise looking at some of the posts here dripping with it , it would be a hard act to sell. CASE OPEN.........
Hi WD,
Malice in this statute has a paticular meaning --
". . . the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."
It doesn't mean the way something is presented. What you feel it is dripping with. That is just your opinion.
There is no libel here--unless you can prove that all are lying intentionally. Sorry-------VP falls under the umbrella of limited public figure--
No one here is close to being libelous. That is the law as it stands now. If you don't like it--take it up with the law makers.
The best defense against a defamation accusation. . . . . the truth.
Someone seems to want to continue this discussion....
Who wanted to continue this discussion? It was dead for almost two months. Why drag it up again and go through the same circular arguments, when there is no convincing some people?
I would go with the old advice, "DON'T FEED THE TROLL."
". . . the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."
It doesn't mean the way something is presented. What you feel it is dripping with. That is just your opinion.
There is no libel here--unless you can prove that all are lying intentionally. Sorry-------VP falls under the umbrella of limited public figure--
No one here is close to being libelous. That is the law as it stands now. If you don't like it--take it up with the law makers.
The best defense against a defamation accusation. . . . . the truth.
the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."[/b]
Exactly and making a statement that someone is a thief,rapist, murderer ect. when you know in fact that person has not been given due process and found guilty of said crimes is a lie, as such it is a false statement. The proper term is aleged until such time as due process has been completed It is actual malice to refer to them as guilty (a Lie ,false statement) until they have been proven such.
Exactly and making a statement that someone is a thief,rapist, murderer ect. when you know in fact that person has not been given due process and found guilty of said crimes is a lie, as such it is a false statement. The proper term is aleged until such time as due process has been completed It is actual malice to refer to them as guilty (a Lie ,false statement) until they have been proven such.
Who wanted to continue this discussion? It was dead for almost two months. Why drag it up again and go through the same circular arguments, when there is no convincing some people?
I would go with the old advice, "DON'T FEED THE TROLL."
It was derailing the active discussion about eyewitnesses.
So, I moved this thread up so that the eyewitness thread could remain about eyewitnesses,
and those who want to discuss "libel" and "legal definitions"
(or pretend they care about them, either-or)
can discuss them on this thread in all their excruciating, hair-splitting, angel-dancing, gnat-straining glory.
Giving personal, firsthand testimony of a wrongful event is not the same thing as libel.
That's how the courts see it at every level of this country. It's considered a First Amendment issue.
Man talk about a redefinition of the meaning of a word.
Ones statement is only considered libel if it is untrue, at which time it is a prosecutable offense. Otherwise it is often referred to as *telling the OTHER side of the story* which is what we do here at Greasespot.
That's how it's handled, both as a First Amendment issue, and in every other sense,
Contrary to the fact that you would like to see the point buried because so far you have no evidence to counter what the law actually says, it is very much a part of this discussion.
Apparently, you're the only one who thinks so. This got moved from the "eyewitness" thread to the "libel" thread
as a distraction from the former thread.
And the law is not ONE sentence in ONE state court- it's thousands and thousands of sentences, with the
letter of the law, and the interpretations of the law, with precedents and dissents, down hundreds of years.
Congratulations on finding 3-4 sentences that seem to support your view.
They're effectively USELESS in an actual COURT because the rest of the law says that a statement has to
be FALSE to be libel, and that the dead can't be libelled no matter what.
I know you want to pretend this is some sort of "court" where the legal definitions are in effect,
but if it WAS, and you tried to prove libel on the dead in court, and tried to say TRUTH doesn't count when
trying to determine libel, the judge would toss out both lines of inquiry as irrelevant. If you tried to appeal
on that basis, you'd be laughed out of the appeals process.
An eyewitness can state what they observed not what is factual. When you state emphatically that someone is a murderer ,thief , rapist in public forum that is no longer an opinion or an alleged charge which is what an eyewitness testimony is alleged until it is proven in a court of law.
That is incorrect. What part of the law are you claiming says this?
Everything in a discussion is either an opinion, or a quote.
That's how we "discuss" things.
We form opinions ALL THE TIME. That includes YOU. When you decide what to wear whenever you leave the
house, you look out the window, check a weather report, or ask someone else about the conditions outside.
Then you form an opinion, and dress accordingly.
Eyewitnesses state what they observed all the time. People question the reliability of their observations,
and eventually form opinions-either the person was correct or not.
(If someone said the sky was clear, either you think the sky is not clear, or you think it's clear.
You can look at it yourself, check a weather report, or ask other eyewitnesses if the sky is clear.
Most sensible adults, if they find a number of unconnected eyewitnesses report the sky is clear,
will conclude that the truth of the matter is that the sky is clear.
They don't have to go to court to prove it, nor to discuss it.
And the word "alleged" doesn't have to accompany it UNLESS you're in a court of law.
Take a look at any news article, and count the number of "allegeds" used in it.
"The hurricane is ALLEGEDLY approaching the coast."
"The Presidential candidate ALLEGEDLY visited the city of Spokane."
"The price of gas ALLEGEDLY went up this year."
It seems particular with you that this is a necessary part of discussion, when forming observations and
discussing opinions.
When eyewitnesses claim to go beyond the realm of eyewitness ,to matter of fact statements which has occurred then it becomes libel.
That's not part of any definition of libel. If you're going to interpret the law for us, kindly cite your own
pedigree as a law professional.
As such one needs to point out that the eyewitness has gone beyond the boundaries of their testimony and as such is misrepresenting the truth.
This isn't how it works, not in any public venue, nor in court.
Libel becomes an issue for courts to determine if a living person claims defamation by a false statement.
The law is quite clear that one can not libel a person they may however go through due process of law and a jury will determine if there was truth or malice in the accusation.
This sentence is ungrammatical, so whatever you were trying to say in the first part is lost.
Whether or not a statement is libelous is determined by a jury, and that's done by
determining several parts, including if the statement was false, and if the statement was malicious.
If so, the jury's likely to find it was libelous.
If one wishes to change their speech to personal opinion or alleged charges then you would be correct it would have no place in the conversation, but one can not make unethical charges and then fault others for pointing out that they were so.
We're having a discussion. Except for your OPINION (and you may hold whatever OPINION you wish),
the idea that "unethical charges" entered into them is considered invalid.
I'd be more concerned if a LEGAL EXPERT determined a PROFESSIONAL OPINION that such was made-
but even then, I'd want the specifics.
(It's possible to prejudice an expert who has not looked at all the facts and ask them to give an opinion
on something out of context-which is why competent experts won't give a professional opinion
"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual."
Really???
Really.
Congratulations on finding a few sentences from the vast forest of documentation of laws. If a judge were to ignore the vast body of written
laws on libel, all precedents, and indeed how the First Amendment is applied, then perhaps he might actually see things your way.
If one tries hard enough, one can find a sentence here, and a sentence there, that make no practical sense, and contradict how the rest of
the law is written and practiced. I've seen laws where, at an intersection, both cars must stop and wait until the other car
has left the intersection, which is physically impossible. (AFAIK, this is STILL on the books.)
See, that's why the ENTIRE law is followed. Laws are written by imperfect people, and so ALL the laws- as well as precedents- are
considered whenever a judgement-or an interpretation of the law-is made.
Lies on the internet are prosecutable, more and more every day cases come to trial.
And truths on the internet are NOT prosecutable. You're determining that something's a lie before it's brought to a jury-
and claiming we're wrong for determining anything's true before it's brought to a jury.
And in court people who lie about others in a public forum are drug into court, why because they libeled another when it is illegal and then this course of action takes place to determine such
And in court people who tell the truth about others in a public forum are called into court.
Again, you determined someone told a "lie" and "libeled" before they were ever seen by the jury.
The court is to "determine" whether or not they lied.
As I said before, the goal of a jury is to FIND THE TRUTH and judgement is made accordingly.
And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero.
Your assumption that nothing can be discusses without a legal judgement is your own opinion.
Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their
opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made.
Perhaps you never considered this when you came to your position.
YOU do the same thing all the time.
That's how discussions go.
Now, if you choose to say 'My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court",
that is your OPINION and your CHOICE.
However, to do so FAIRLY, you should then EXCUSE YOURSELF from all discussions online, rather than insist that the discussions that
already take place CONFORM TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARD. You don't get to decide how everyone else communicates.
If you run a discussion board, you can determine what's allowed on your board-but can't force people to actually POST there.
If you don't run a discussion board, you have no authority to determine what OTHER PEOPLE should use as their standard.
And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero.
Your assumption that nothing can be discussed without a legal judgement is your own opinion.
Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their
opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made.
That's how discussions go.
Now, if you choose to say "My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court",
that is your OPINION, and your CHOICE.
Your assumption that nothing can be discussed without a legal judgement is your own opinion.
Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their
opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made.
Perhaps you never considered this when you came to your position.
YOU do the same thing all the time.
That's how discussions go.
Now, if you choose to say "My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court",
that is your OPINION, and your CHOICE.
However, to do so FAIRLY, you should then EXCUSE YOURSELF from all discussions online, rather than insist that the discussions that
already take place CONFORM TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARD. You don't get to decide how everyone else communicates.
If you run a discussion board, you can determine what's allowed on your board-but can't force people to actually POST there.
If you don't run a discussion board, you have no authority to determine what OTHER PEOPLE should use as their standard.
===================
twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a
molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue,
shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable
if they tried to claim this?
Failure to take action is not part of what determins libel it is not a criteria in any definition Is it your premise that it is fine to break laws because no one see's you or holds you accountable to them? Is that really what you want to argue is ok?
Amazing how you can miss what should be the obvious point.
twi will take any opportunity to take legal action wherever they can.
They have taken no action against all those who have posted about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist.
If they had any basis for suing us, they would have sued us.
Therefore, it can be seen as the professional opinion that the posts here are not libelous.
This, of course, is not the same as them, as professionals, stating "none of this is libelous."
However, most people would note that-from twi- silence on some matters says as much as loud shouting does on other matters.
Their PROFESSIONALS have deemed the actions here not-actionable under the law.
You as a layman-a NONprofessional- keeps claiming the actions here are actionable under the law.
Is it possible that you-the nonprofessional- are MISTAKEN about this? Is it possible that you MISUNDERSTAND something?
Is it possible you're MISINTERPRETING how the law works?
=================================
Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony.
Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor
honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason.
Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows
vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both.
In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to
dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies.
That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair.
It is not academic when one is breaking the laws. It is criminal
If the laws were broken, it would be legally-actionable.
No one here is breaking the laws. No one here is committing a crime.
No legal action has been taken. No legal action WILL be taken.
That a crime has occurred is the opinion of ONE LAYMAN.
All those here with ANY legal experience have said the opposite.
All those with the ability to take action if it was criminal are AWARE of what's being said, and are taking no action.
It is the opinion of ONE layman that laws are broken, and criminal actions taken.
That ONE LAYMAN is incorrect.
No laws have been broken, no criminal actions have occurred.
This is STILL not a court of law.
This is all ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
That's the same as any OTHER discussion, any place at any time where one is not rendering PROFESSIONAL opinions
or in a court of law.
=============
As Mark Clarke said:
"There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
To continue to libel people that have no such charge of crime hurts people as well and????
"ou keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"
I never said that there was not personal testimony what I said was there has been no hard factual evidence.
A) No one ever said that was.
B) If this WAS a court of law, eyewitness testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of "physical evidence".
(Your use of the term "hard factual evidence" is nonspecific.)
C) This is STILL not a court of law.
Everyone has a right to know the truth, not one side of the view when you arrive at the ruth through our due process of law then I'll have no disagreement as I don't with the case of Mr. Mart*nd*le At present you have no truth only a one sided view.
Your insistence that a discussion is invalid unless a court of law has rendered a verdict confirming it is unfair,
and is ridiculous to apply on a general discussion board like the GSC.
If you REALLY can't participate in the discussions here because they're not confirmed with legal verdicts,
you should demonstrate the courage of your convictions.
That would mean stepping out of discussions here and elsewhere where this is not the case.
You could also make a messageboard where that's the standard, and demonstrate to us-by example- that this can actually WORK,
and is not just some theoretical construct that would fail to actually WORK.
You are accusing, in a public forum, several posters of lying about VPW and others. Unless you have PROOF that they are lying, I would say that your accusations are libelous (at least by your own standards for libel).
Exactly and making a statement that someone is a thief,rapist, murderer ect. when you know in fact that person has not been given due process and found guilty of said crimes is a lie, as such it is a false statement. The proper term is aleged until such time as due process has been completed It is actual malice to refer to them as guilty (a Lie ,false statement) until they have been proven such.
Hi WD
In sincerity, I worry about your ability to reason. By your own admission you are breaking the "NEW RULE" you have just instituted here. Wouldn't that be "Alleged" Libel as posters of their horrendous stories have not been given "Due Process" and found GUILTY of lying in a court?
So, we can't call it factual according to you because VP was never given "Due process" but you can call it libelous despite the fact no one here has been found guilty of libel?
What? Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Sure sounds like the need to be right with you--overrides the need to be logical.
Sorry Whitedove, under the current statute of libel concerning a limited public figure(Or private citizen). . . . . . nothing here comes close to being libelous, but I think you believe the more you say it--the more it will sound true.
We are not in a cult anymore--we have the ability to think for ourselves now--seems most here do a pretty good job of it and have shown you over and again--nothing libelous here.
Think what you will-- but, if you are saying something that just isn't true or accurate according to the FACTS of the law--are you not doing exactly what you are accusing others of?
No need to answer--it is an obvious yes and just saying it louder--doesn't make it so. :)
AND where as there are many many eye witness posters discussing these events....the one claiming no proof is the one who never personally witnessed anything outside of a particular area.
Seems kind of like unreliable opinion if you ask me.
I for one am truly thankful that we can each share our own piece of the puzzle. It gives us a bigger picture of what twi was. We can see beyond the scope of any one persons experience in a small area with limited exposure.
While factual in that ones opinion, it would not be a truthful representation of what twi was and it`s impact on those whom were visciously treated and abused at the hands of vp and his leaders.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
14
14
8
Popular Days
Sep 11
23
Sep 10
19
Jul 15
10
Sep 12
9
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 8 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
WhiteDove 14 posts
geisha779 8 posts
Popular Days
Sep 11 2008
23 posts
Sep 10 2008
19 posts
Jul 15 2008
10 posts
Sep 12 2008
9 posts
WhiteDove
Sorry I think the law is a determining factor you can take up your complaint with those who write them but until then it is not ok to libel others .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Nothing to discuss unless you have some new legal opinion, it is pretty clear that one can not libel a person either dead or alive. Truth is a defense, as Mark pointed out with the following condition..... which is to be determined by the jury. Note it does not state to be determined by WW or the GreaseSpot Cafe. until such time as you met your burdon of proof and have a jury determine otherwise it is libel to either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.
“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
Also, the following is from the Ohio code, VP's old stomping grounds (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2739):
2739.02 Defenses in actions for libel or slander.
In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
I agree it is ,but that does not give anyone the right to change the law ,because they want it to read differently. Until there is legal decision the law remains clear. You want to meet the burdon of truth as defence then meet the conditions. The law does not say because you believe it to be so that's close enough.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Giving personal, firsthand testimony of a wrongful event is not the same thing as libel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Man talk about a redefinition of the meaning of a word.
Ones statement is only considered libel if it is untrue, at which time it is a prosecutable offense. Otherwise it is often referred to as *telling the OTHER side of the story* which is what we do here at Greasespot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I truly hope that you are right Geisha. It seems so unfair for someone at the end of their life to walk away from all of the suffering caused and show up at judgement day saying....Hey it was the grace administration, I was free to do as I pleased.
To bad so sad all of you whiners, I am born again of incorruptible seed, I am untouchable :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled.
"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual."
(Scroll up.)
Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable.
That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it.
It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it.
What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system,
to be used IN the legal system.
In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the
court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are
meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their
"argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side,
and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision.
That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability-
all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts.
That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know
the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury.
Context, context, context....
The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR.
Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE.
That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be
inflammatory AND FALSE.
Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city
youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL.
If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated
by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE.
If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects
that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie-
which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead-
he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember?
Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel.
That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each
law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead-
whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling.
Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually...
That is true.
And the laws state-and any law reference states-
that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE.
If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel.
Here's what Law.com says...
"http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||
libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,
an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation,
by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization)
open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person,
but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person
making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. "
Here's what it says about 'libel per se':
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...4&bold=||||
"libel per se
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses."
Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel
"Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,
an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule,
hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation.
It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages
by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement
which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement
must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue."
Here's what Nolo.com says about libel:
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7
"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation
or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person
who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken,
but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."
Here's what FindLaw says about libel:
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/r...623b89f93d49694
"libel
['li-bel]
Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases)
2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words
specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt"
twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a
molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue,
shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable
if they tried to claim this?
=================================
Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony.
Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor
honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason.
Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows
vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both.
In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to
dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies.
That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair.
=============
As Mark Clarke said:
"There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Contrary to the fact that you would like to see the point buried because so far you have no evidence to counter what the law actually says, it is very much a part of this discussion. An eyewitness can state what they observed not what is factual. When you state emphatically that someone is a murderer ,thief , rapist in public forum that is no longer an opinion or an alleged charge which is what an eyewitness testimony is alleged until it is proven in a court of law. When eyewitnesses claim to go beyond the realm of eyewitness ,to matter of fact statements which has occurred then it becomes libel. As such one needs to point out that the eyewitness has gone beyond the boundaries of their testimony and as such is misrepresenting the truth. The law is quite clear that one can not libel a person they may however go through due process of law and a jury will determine if there was truth or malice in the accusation. If one wishes to change their speech to personal opinion or alleged charges then you would be correct it would have no place in the conversation, but one can not make unethical charges and then fault others for pointing out that they were so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
"Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
CASE CLOSED!! VP FALLS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE BY ANY STRETCH
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't know what you meant by this. A dead person can't be libelled.
Apparently some people think otherwise ......
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual."
Really???
Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005)
(Scroll up.)
Even if a statement about a dead person was false, that's not legally-actionable.
That's how the COURTS OF LAW see it.
It would still be a LIE-which is how the laymen at the GSC see it.
Lies on the internet are prosecutable, more and more every day cases come to trial.
‘Any publication, whether spoken, written or otherwise, to a third person which is false and has
the affect of adversely affecting another’s reputation.’
Types of defamation
Libel and slander distinguish the law of defamation where it may take the different forms of
publication either in transient form by the spoken word, gestures (slander); and where publication
exists in a permanent form such as the written word, printed, or broadcast over the television,
radio or indeed the Internet (a combination of broadcast and printed form).
It is an important note that in respect of libel there is no requirement to show that there has
been suffered any loss or injury as a result of the statement. Libel is actionable per se.
What is it supposed to say? It's written for the legal system, by the legal system,
to be used IN the legal system.
In the courts, the attempt is made to FIND THE TRUTH. It is the responsibilities of all parties of the
court to act legally and honestly, to UNCOVER THE TRUTH. That's why the lawyers on both sides are
meant to do their best-the idea is that the side with the TRUTH will win. Both sides offer their
"argument"- their evidence, their eyewitnesses, cross-examine the other side,
and the jury of neutral parties review both sides to render a decision.
That's the idea behind the legal system. Determining truth, innocence, guilt, culpability-
all those are matters for the jury to concern itself with-if a matter is brought to the courts.
That explanation is meant to EXCLUDE THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT.
It is not for the judge, nor the stenographer, nor the attorneys, to claim they definitively know
the truth on the matter- that is reserved for the jury.
Context, context, context....
And in court people who lie about others in a public forum are drug into court, why because they libeled another when it is illegal and then this course of action takes place to determine such
In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero.
The odd exclusion of the notation that a claim of libel has to be FALSE is rather PECULIAR.
Any lawyer could tell you-and many laymen- that a claim of libel or slander is invalid if the statement is TRUE.
That's why law dictionaries mention that all the time- to count as libel, the statement has to be
inflammatory AND FALSE.
Thus, if I claimed, say, that Raf was about to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with inner-city
youth, it would be FALSE but not INFLAMMATORY. Thus, it is a LIE, but it is not LIBEL.
If I claimed that, say, V1nce F, decades ago, asked me to bury a Biblical response to a false teaching circulated
by someone else (the response being my own), it may well be considered inflammatory, but it would be TRUE.
If I claimed that T*M M threatened me with physical violence in a civil conversation when I approached subjects
that he found inconvenient, it would probably be considered inflammatory, but it would not be a lie-
which means it is NOT LIBEL. The entire thing becomes a moot point when one realizes T*m is dead-
he blew his brains out over the evil things lcm did to him and his wife, remember?
Dead people cannot be libeled. One can lie about them, but that is not legally actionable as libel.
That's true across the USA. Laws that mysteriously leave that out don't change that-especially since each
law does not exist in a void. Thus, the laws governing libel include whether the person is living or dead-
whether or not a related law mentions it. BOTH laws would be cited for any ruling.
And that has not happened.............Get back to me when you have a true verdict. Until then your assumption that it is or isn't means zero.
Now, concerning vpw's eventual judgement before The Great Judge of All, eventually...
That is true.
And the laws state-and any law reference states-
that to be considered libel, something has to be FALSE.
If it is proven FALSE, it is libel. If it is proven TRUE, it is not libel.
Here's what Law.com says...
"http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||
libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,
an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation,
by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization)
open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person,
but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person
making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. "
Here's what it says about 'libel per se':
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...4&bold=||||
"libel per se
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses."
Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel
"Libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film,
an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule,
hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation.
It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages
by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement
which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement
must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue."
Here's what Nolo.com says about libel:
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7
"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation
or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person
who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken,
but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."
Here's what FindLaw says about libel:
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/r...623b89f93d49694
"libel
['li-bel]
Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases)
2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words
specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt"
twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a
molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue,
shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable
if they tried to claim this?
Failure to take action is not part of what determins libel it is not a criteria in any definition Is it your premise that it is fine to break laws because no one see's you or holds you accountable to them? Is that really what you want to argue is ok?
=================================
Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony.
Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor
honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason.
Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows
vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both.
In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to
dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies.
That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair.
It is not academic when one is breaking the laws. It is criminal
=============
As Mark Clarke said:
"There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
To continue to libel people that have no such charge of crime hurts people as well and????
You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"
I never said that there was not personal testimony what I said was there has been no hard factual evidence.
Everyone has a right to know the truth, not one side of the view when you arrive at thetruth through our due process of law then I'll have no disagreement as I don't with the case of Mr. Mart*nd*le At present you have no truth only a one sided view.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You assume actual malice is not provable I'd say otherwise looking at some of the posts here dripping with it , it would be a hard act to sell. CASE OPEN.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi WD,
Malice in this statute has a paticular meaning --
". . . the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."
It doesn't mean the way something is presented. What you feel it is dripping with. That is just your opinion.
There is no libel here--unless you can prove that all are lying intentionally. Sorry-------VP falls under the umbrella of limited public figure--
No one here is close to being libelous. That is the law as it stands now. If you don't like it--take it up with the law makers.
The best defense against a defamation accusation. . . . . the truth.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Who wanted to continue this discussion? It was dead for almost two months. Why drag it up again and go through the same circular arguments, when there is no convincing some people?
I would go with the old advice, "DON'T FEED THE TROLL."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Exactly and making a statement that someone is a thief,rapist, murderer ect. when you know in fact that person has not been given due process and found guilty of said crimes is a lie, as such it is a false statement. The proper term is aleged until such time as due process has been completed It is actual malice to refer to them as guilty (a Lie ,false statement) until they have been proven such.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
You are sadly mistaken...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A "false statement" is one that has been PROVEN to be untrue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was derailing the active discussion about eyewitnesses.
So, I moved this thread up so that the eyewitness thread could remain about eyewitnesses,
and those who want to discuss "libel" and "legal definitions"
(or pretend they care about them, either-or)
can discuss them on this thread in all their excruciating, hair-splitting, angel-dancing, gnat-straining glory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's how the courts see it at every level of this country. It's considered a First Amendment issue.
That's how it's handled, both as a First Amendment issue, and in every other sense,
when someone is actually IN COURT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Apparently, you're the only one who thinks so. This got moved from the "eyewitness" thread to the "libel" thread
as a distraction from the former thread.
And the law is not ONE sentence in ONE state court- it's thousands and thousands of sentences, with the
letter of the law, and the interpretations of the law, with precedents and dissents, down hundreds of years.
Congratulations on finding 3-4 sentences that seem to support your view.
They're effectively USELESS in an actual COURT because the rest of the law says that a statement has to
be FALSE to be libel, and that the dead can't be libelled no matter what.
I know you want to pretend this is some sort of "court" where the legal definitions are in effect,
but if it WAS, and you tried to prove libel on the dead in court, and tried to say TRUTH doesn't count when
trying to determine libel, the judge would toss out both lines of inquiry as irrelevant. If you tried to appeal
on that basis, you'd be laughed out of the appeals process.
That is incorrect. What part of the law are you claiming says this?
Everything in a discussion is either an opinion, or a quote.
That's how we "discuss" things.
We form opinions ALL THE TIME. That includes YOU. When you decide what to wear whenever you leave the
house, you look out the window, check a weather report, or ask someone else about the conditions outside.
Then you form an opinion, and dress accordingly.
Eyewitnesses state what they observed all the time. People question the reliability of their observations,
and eventually form opinions-either the person was correct or not.
(If someone said the sky was clear, either you think the sky is not clear, or you think it's clear.
You can look at it yourself, check a weather report, or ask other eyewitnesses if the sky is clear.
Most sensible adults, if they find a number of unconnected eyewitnesses report the sky is clear,
will conclude that the truth of the matter is that the sky is clear.
They don't have to go to court to prove it, nor to discuss it.
And the word "alleged" doesn't have to accompany it UNLESS you're in a court of law.
Take a look at any news article, and count the number of "allegeds" used in it.
"The hurricane is ALLEGEDLY approaching the coast."
"The Presidential candidate ALLEGEDLY visited the city of Spokane."
"The price of gas ALLEGEDLY went up this year."
It seems particular with you that this is a necessary part of discussion, when forming observations and
discussing opinions.
That's not part of any definition of libel. If you're going to interpret the law for us, kindly cite your own
pedigree as a law professional.
This isn't how it works, not in any public venue, nor in court.
Libel becomes an issue for courts to determine if a living person claims defamation by a false statement.
This sentence is ungrammatical, so whatever you were trying to say in the first part is lost.
Whether or not a statement is libelous is determined by a jury, and that's done by
determining several parts, including if the statement was false, and if the statement was malicious.
If so, the jury's likely to find it was libelous.
We're having a discussion. Except for your OPINION (and you may hold whatever OPINION you wish),
the idea that "unethical charges" entered into them is considered invalid.
I'd be more concerned if a LEGAL EXPERT determined a PROFESSIONAL OPINION that such was made-
but even then, I'd want the specifics.
(It's possible to prejudice an expert who has not looked at all the facts and ask them to give an opinion
on something out of context-which is why competent experts won't give a professional opinion
off-the-cuff.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Judge Judy is the one to handle this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"In general, there can be no defamation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual."
Really.
Congratulations on finding a few sentences from the vast forest of documentation of laws. If a judge were to ignore the vast body of written
laws on libel, all precedents, and indeed how the First Amendment is applied, then perhaps he might actually see things your way.
If one tries hard enough, one can find a sentence here, and a sentence there, that make no practical sense, and contradict how the rest of
the law is written and practiced. I've seen laws where, at an intersection, both cars must stop and wait until the other car
has left the intersection, which is physically impossible. (AFAIK, this is STILL on the books.)
See, that's why the ENTIRE law is followed. Laws are written by imperfect people, and so ALL the laws- as well as precedents- are
considered whenever a judgement-or an interpretation of the law-is made.
And truths on the internet are NOT prosecutable. You're determining that something's a lie before it's brought to a jury-
and claiming we're wrong for determining anything's true before it's brought to a jury.
And in court people who tell the truth about others in a public forum are called into court.
Again, you determined someone told a "lie" and "libeled" before they were ever seen by the jury.
The court is to "determine" whether or not they lied.
As I said before, the goal of a jury is to FIND THE TRUTH and judgement is made accordingly.
Your assumption that nothing can be discusses without a legal judgement is your own opinion.
Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their
opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made.
Perhaps you never considered this when you came to your position.
YOU do the same thing all the time.
That's how discussions go.
Now, if you choose to say 'My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court",
that is your OPINION and your CHOICE.
However, to do so FAIRLY, you should then EXCUSE YOURSELF from all discussions online, rather than insist that the discussions that
already take place CONFORM TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARD. You don't get to decide how everyone else communicates.
If you run a discussion board, you can determine what's allowed on your board-but can't force people to actually POST there.
If you don't run a discussion board, you have no authority to determine what OTHER PEOPLE should use as their standard.
Your assumption that nothing can be discussed without a legal judgement is your own opinion.
Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their
opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made.
That's how discussions go.
Now, if you choose to say "My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court",
that is your OPINION, and your CHOICE.
Your assumption that nothing can be discussed without a legal judgement is your own opinion.
Millions of times a day, on the street, around the water cooler, and online, people have discussions where they give their
opinions on things, and do not take out evidence for every statement made.
Perhaps you never considered this when you came to your position.
YOU do the same thing all the time.
That's how discussions go.
Now, if you choose to say "My conscience forbids me from participating in any discussion where all statements are not proven in court",
that is your OPINION, and your CHOICE.
However, to do so FAIRLY, you should then EXCUSE YOURSELF from all discussions online, rather than insist that the discussions that
already take place CONFORM TO YOUR PERSONAL STANDARD. You don't get to decide how everyone else communicates.
If you run a discussion board, you can determine what's allowed on your board-but can't force people to actually POST there.
If you don't run a discussion board, you have no authority to determine what OTHER PEOPLE should use as their standard.
===================
twi is lawyer-happy. If all the discussions we've had here about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a
molester, and a rapist haven't been enough grounds for them to try to sue,
shouldn't any non-lawyer note that the LAWYERS determined this would be unwinnable
if they tried to claim this?
Amazing how you can miss what should be the obvious point.
twi will take any opportunity to take legal action wherever they can.
They have taken no action against all those who have posted about how vpw was a liar, a plagiarist, a molester, and a rapist.
If they had any basis for suing us, they would have sued us.
Therefore, it can be seen as the professional opinion that the posts here are not libelous.
This, of course, is not the same as them, as professionals, stating "none of this is libelous."
However, most people would note that-from twi- silence on some matters says as much as loud shouting does on other matters.
Their PROFESSIONALS have deemed the actions here not-actionable under the law.
You as a layman-a NONprofessional- keeps claiming the actions here are actionable under the law.
Is it possible that you-the nonprofessional- are MISTAKEN about this? Is it possible that you MISUNDERSTAND something?
Is it possible you're MISINTERPRETING how the law works?
=================================
Ultimately, of course, ALL OF THIS IS ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
In each discussion, there has been eyewitness testimony.
Any poster can decide to dismiss all the eyewitnesses, but it's neither consistent nor
honest to dismiss them all categorically for any reason.
Even if 1/2 of them were in error or lying, the testimony of the rest shows
vpw was a man who raped, molested, and made arrangements to do both.
In a court of law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
According to the Old Testament Law, such testimony would be sufficient for a conviction.
However, a few people decide that-since there is no court- they are free to
dismiss how courts and God's Law determine where truth in a matter lies.
That's not intellectually-honest, nor is it fair.
If the laws were broken, it would be legally-actionable.
No one here is breaking the laws. No one here is committing a crime.
No legal action has been taken. No legal action WILL be taken.
That a crime has occurred is the opinion of ONE LAYMAN.
All those here with ANY legal experience have said the opposite.
All those with the ability to take action if it was criminal are AWARE of what's being said, and are taking no action.
It is the opinion of ONE layman that laws are broken, and criminal actions taken.
That ONE LAYMAN is incorrect.
No laws have been broken, no criminal actions have occurred.
This is STILL not a court of law.
This is all ACADEMIC.
The GSC is NOT a court of law, and has no jury.
Each poster is free to follow their own conscience, examine the eyewitness testimony,
examine such evidence as is accessible, and come to their own conclusions.
That's the same as any OTHER discussion, any place at any time where one is not rendering PROFESSIONAL opinions
or in a court of law.
=============
As Mark Clarke said:
"There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
What's happening is STILL not libel.
To you it is UNPLEASANT.
You DISAGREE.
This does not mean you get to anoint it "libel."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mark Clarke:
"ou keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?"
A) No one ever said that was.
B) If this WAS a court of law, eyewitness testimony is sufficient to convict in the absence of "physical evidence".
(Your use of the term "hard factual evidence" is nonspecific.)
C) This is STILL not a court of law.
Your insistence that a discussion is invalid unless a court of law has rendered a verdict confirming it is unfair,
and is ridiculous to apply on a general discussion board like the GSC.
If you REALLY can't participate in the discussions here because they're not confirmed with legal verdicts,
you should demonstrate the courage of your convictions.
That would mean stepping out of discussions here and elsewhere where this is not the case.
You could also make a messageboard where that's the standard, and demonstrate to us-by example- that this can actually WORK,
and is not just some theoretical construct that would fail to actually WORK.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
WD,
You are accusing, in a public forum, several posters of lying about VPW and others. Unless you have PROOF that they are lying, I would say that your accusations are libelous (at least by your own standards for libel).
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi WD
In sincerity, I worry about your ability to reason. By your own admission you are breaking the "NEW RULE" you have just instituted here. Wouldn't that be "Alleged" Libel as posters of their horrendous stories have not been given "Due Process" and found GUILTY of lying in a court?
So, we can't call it factual according to you because VP was never given "Due process" but you can call it libelous despite the fact no one here has been found guilty of libel?
What? Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Sure sounds like the need to be right with you--overrides the need to be logical.
Sorry Whitedove, under the current statute of libel concerning a limited public figure(Or private citizen). . . . . . nothing here comes close to being libelous, but I think you believe the more you say it--the more it will sound true.
We are not in a cult anymore--we have the ability to think for ourselves now--seems most here do a pretty good job of it and have shown you over and again--nothing libelous here.
Think what you will-- but, if you are saying something that just isn't true or accurate according to the FACTS of the law--are you not doing exactly what you are accusing others of?
No need to answer--it is an obvious yes and just saying it louder--doesn't make it so. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
AND where as there are many many eye witness posters discussing these events....the one claiming no proof is the one who never personally witnessed anything outside of a particular area.
Seems kind of like unreliable opinion if you ask me.
I for one am truly thankful that we can each share our own piece of the puzzle. It gives us a bigger picture of what twi was. We can see beyond the scope of any one persons experience in a small area with limited exposure.
While factual in that ones opinion, it would not be a truthful representation of what twi was and it`s impact on those whom were visciously treated and abused at the hands of vp and his leaders.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.