- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 28,784
- Reaction score
- 43,362
Hi EVeryone,
As we go forward with our Ramsey Rebuttal Project I want to remind you that you own your words.
With any luck this project will actually get some attention which means it will draw the money hungry eyes of Lin Wood.
I am protected by a federal law if someone posts something libelous on the forum. You are not.
Now, I also own my own words so if Wood is going to go after anyone it just might be me. Then again maybe not.
Here is the definition of Libel of a Public Person is:
To meet the Supreme Court's definition of libel involving a public figure, a quotation must not only be made up or materially altered. It must also defame the person quoted, and damage his or her reputation or livelihood Jane Gross, New York Times, 5 June 1993
It is relevant to note that in 1987 the suit against Ms. Malcolm was dismissed in a narrow ruling that stated that even if the quotations were false and mischievous, Ms. Malcolm's alterations did not represent malicious intent and therefore did not constitute libel. Fred W. Friendly, New York Times Book Review, 25 Feb. 1990
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
We are dealing with public people so the bar is much higher to prove Libel. The plaintiff has to prove the person knowingly and maliciously made something up with the intent to harm their livelihood.
Still, I wanted to remind you all that you own your words.
As we go forward with our Ramsey Rebuttal Project I want to remind you that you own your words.
With any luck this project will actually get some attention which means it will draw the money hungry eyes of Lin Wood.
I am protected by a federal law if someone posts something libelous on the forum. You are not.
Now, I also own my own words so if Wood is going to go after anyone it just might be me. Then again maybe not.
Here is the definition of Libel of a Public Person is:
To meet the Supreme Court's definition of libel involving a public figure, a quotation must not only be made up or materially altered. It must also defame the person quoted, and damage his or her reputation or livelihood Jane Gross, New York Times, 5 June 1993
It is relevant to note that in 1987 the suit against Ms. Malcolm was dismissed in a narrow ruling that stated that even if the quotations were false and mischievous, Ms. Malcolm's alterations did not represent malicious intent and therefore did not constitute libel. Fred W. Friendly, New York Times Book Review, 25 Feb. 1990
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
We are dealing with public people so the bar is much higher to prove Libel. The plaintiff has to prove the person knowingly and maliciously made something up with the intent to harm their livelihood.
Still, I wanted to remind you all that you own your words.
