Hockeytiger
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Posts
- 721
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 308
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Illinois (United States)
- Sexuality
- 69% Straight, 31% Gay
- Gender
- Male
If I may kindly redirect you away from Merriam-Webster and towards the United States Supreme Court, please follow my reasoning. In order to prove defamation in this type of case the plaintiff must show 6 things (ALL 6).
1) Defamatory language on the part of the defendant
2) The defamatory language must concern the plaintiff
3) Publication of the defamatory language by the defendant to at least one third person
4) Damage to the reputation of the plaintiff
5) The falsity of the defamatory language
6) Fault on the defendantâs part.
To be clear I will now repeat the alleged defamatory statement âRobert Byrd, Senator from W. Virginia and KKK member who is a now a Democrat leader for one.â
I would say that this claim of libel certainly succeeds on elements 1, 2 and 3. It fails on elements 4, 5, and 6.
To answer your point, Dickbulge, I agree that being a member of the KKK is a certainly a bad thing. Therefore, the statement contains defamatory language. So it passes element 1.
It is obvious that the statement concerned Sen. Byrd so it passes element 2.
It was obviously published so it passes element 3.
Element 4 requires damage to Sen. Byrdâs reputation. This type of case requires pecuniary loss to prove damage. There clearly is none here so this element fails and therefore there is no libel.
Element 5 is tricky in this case. One must carefully analyze the statement. Please note that the time frame is ambiguous in the statement. The words âisâ and ânowâ seem to refer to him being a leader of the Democratic Party not about being a member of the KKK. One must also remember that Sen. Byrd was indeed a member of the KKK. Was Bigenuf stating that he IS a member of the KKK? Or was he stating that he WAS a member of the KKK? The meaning is unclear and therefore cannot be false. Element 5 fails as well and there is no libel.
Element 6 requires a showing of fault on Bigenufâs part. The standard of fault is known as âmaliceâ. So what is Malice? In New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)), the US Supreme Court ruled that the defendant must have been subjectively aware that the statement was false or that he was subjectively reckless in making the statement. Recklessness requires that he actually entertained doubts about the truthfulness of the statement. There is no realistic way for the senator to prove that Bigenuf actually knew that the statement was false or that he was reckless in making it. Therefore, this element fails and there is no libel.
BTW Jonâs statement about Pat Buchanan is not libelous either because it fails elements 4 and 6. Though, I will agree with the sentiment about his rather disturbing political views.
As for Sen. Byrd being compassionate, let me cite two examples of his famed compassion. When Max Cleland was elected to the US Senate, Sen. Byrd initially denied him entry to the Senate floor for the grave crime of being disabled and needing to use a wheelchair. The ever so compassionate Sen. Byrd was actually relying on the Senate rules that forbade the use of wheelchairs on the Senate floor. There were two previous disabled Senators who used wheelchairs and Sen. Byrd pointed out that they were happy to allow Senate staff to carry them around the Senate floor. Apparently, the Senator from West Virginia didnât understand why Max Cleland couldnât do the same. After Max Cleland expressed outrage at the thought of being carried around the Senate floor, Sen. Byrd backpedaled, but still denied Sen. Cleland entry to the Senate floor until the Senate rules had been properly amended. If that wasnât enough, in 1997 Sen. Byrd was the ONLY senator to object, and therefore, refused entry, to a legally blind stafferâs use of a guide dog on the Senate floor.
The man is not compassionate; he is a prick and should go the way of other senatorial gasbags like, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond. If we could convince Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy to join them, we might just be able to air out the Senate.
Ok Defamation 101 and Senatorial History 204 are now concluded please continue with your regularly scheduled thread.
1) Defamatory language on the part of the defendant
2) The defamatory language must concern the plaintiff
3) Publication of the defamatory language by the defendant to at least one third person
4) Damage to the reputation of the plaintiff
5) The falsity of the defamatory language
6) Fault on the defendantâs part.
To be clear I will now repeat the alleged defamatory statement âRobert Byrd, Senator from W. Virginia and KKK member who is a now a Democrat leader for one.â
I would say that this claim of libel certainly succeeds on elements 1, 2 and 3. It fails on elements 4, 5, and 6.
To answer your point, Dickbulge, I agree that being a member of the KKK is a certainly a bad thing. Therefore, the statement contains defamatory language. So it passes element 1.
It is obvious that the statement concerned Sen. Byrd so it passes element 2.
It was obviously published so it passes element 3.
Element 4 requires damage to Sen. Byrdâs reputation. This type of case requires pecuniary loss to prove damage. There clearly is none here so this element fails and therefore there is no libel.
Element 5 is tricky in this case. One must carefully analyze the statement. Please note that the time frame is ambiguous in the statement. The words âisâ and ânowâ seem to refer to him being a leader of the Democratic Party not about being a member of the KKK. One must also remember that Sen. Byrd was indeed a member of the KKK. Was Bigenuf stating that he IS a member of the KKK? Or was he stating that he WAS a member of the KKK? The meaning is unclear and therefore cannot be false. Element 5 fails as well and there is no libel.
Element 6 requires a showing of fault on Bigenufâs part. The standard of fault is known as âmaliceâ. So what is Malice? In New York Times v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)), the US Supreme Court ruled that the defendant must have been subjectively aware that the statement was false or that he was subjectively reckless in making the statement. Recklessness requires that he actually entertained doubts about the truthfulness of the statement. There is no realistic way for the senator to prove that Bigenuf actually knew that the statement was false or that he was reckless in making it. Therefore, this element fails and there is no libel.
BTW Jonâs statement about Pat Buchanan is not libelous either because it fails elements 4 and 6. Though, I will agree with the sentiment about his rather disturbing political views.
As for Sen. Byrd being compassionate, let me cite two examples of his famed compassion. When Max Cleland was elected to the US Senate, Sen. Byrd initially denied him entry to the Senate floor for the grave crime of being disabled and needing to use a wheelchair. The ever so compassionate Sen. Byrd was actually relying on the Senate rules that forbade the use of wheelchairs on the Senate floor. There were two previous disabled Senators who used wheelchairs and Sen. Byrd pointed out that they were happy to allow Senate staff to carry them around the Senate floor. Apparently, the Senator from West Virginia didnât understand why Max Cleland couldnât do the same. After Max Cleland expressed outrage at the thought of being carried around the Senate floor, Sen. Byrd backpedaled, but still denied Sen. Cleland entry to the Senate floor until the Senate rules had been properly amended. If that wasnât enough, in 1997 Sen. Byrd was the ONLY senator to object, and therefore, refused entry, to a legally blind stafferâs use of a guide dog on the Senate floor.
The man is not compassionate; he is a prick and should go the way of other senatorial gasbags like, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond. If we could convince Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy to join them, we might just be able to air out the Senate.
Ok Defamation 101 and Senatorial History 204 are now concluded please continue with your regularly scheduled thread.
OK I'll bite, why isn't it libelous? Fits the definition in my Merriam-Webster- unless you believe belonging to the KKK is a good thing.
[post=293268]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Libelous? or not? He is very much like the cocks/vaginas represented in this discussion.
They "started" out "small and all "grew" into magnificance. Things change people change and our dicks (thank ya all) grew to magnificance.
Nothing wrong with that, eh??
blackwood
while I have no political views or affiliations myself, bigenuf makes a valid point. if you're dumb/psychotic enough to become a politician, expect every stupid pointless detail of your life to be magnified for public consumption. in fact the more stupid and pointless, the bigger a deal it is.
"god" bless "democracy."
"god" bless "democracy."
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Yeah, but bush's long rich history of bullshit is barely even discussed! Try to compare his antics to Clinton's blowjob, and my brain just goes on "tilt".
I was only saying for the most part I found Democrats vs. Republicans to be akin to intellectuals vs. spewers of rhetoric. I realise that's far more inflamatory than what I originally said, and I know there are people out there who will surf the net furiously to dredge up every example poosible to the contrary, regardless of how flimsy, but it my own lifetime, this is the conclusion I've drawn. The very fact that this was the best example that could be found kind of echos my sentiments.
It was far less than 60 years ago that bush was getting in trouble with the law for driving drunk, brawling, bankrupting one company after another, and his past is barely mentioned. I would think in his position, his past would be far more relevant, but he says "Gawd" on tv, so he doesn't have to account for his behavior.
I was only saying for the most part I found Democrats vs. Republicans to be akin to intellectuals vs. spewers of rhetoric. I realise that's far more inflamatory than what I originally said, and I know there are people out there who will surf the net furiously to dredge up every example poosible to the contrary, regardless of how flimsy, but it my own lifetime, this is the conclusion I've drawn. The very fact that this was the best example that could be found kind of echos my sentiments.
It was far less than 60 years ago that bush was getting in trouble with the law for driving drunk, brawling, bankrupting one company after another, and his past is barely mentioned. I would think in his position, his past would be far more relevant, but he says "Gawd" on tv, so he doesn't have to account for his behavior.
technically it would be, were it not for the fact that as a president and from a presidential family he has entire office-blocks full of people employed solely to uphold and defend his character, up to and including the concealment and/or falsification of existing information and the suppression of public examination. all prominent politicians have to do this (because nearly all of them are scumbags, and the ones which aren't are simply nuts), and bush is, in public terms, the most important politician in the world. I doubt that he personally has much or anything to do with the process - it's all engineered and sustained by his big-business and power-brokering supporters - but the end result is the same. it's barely-mentioned because they don't allow it to be mentioned, and they know that the vast majority of voters are too vapid and witless to bother considering anything that isn't constantly shoved under their noses.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Dr. Rock, sometimes, I just wanna kiss you! (Other times, it's much more lewd).
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Posts
- 6,215
- Media
- 15
- Likes
- 14,690
- Points
- 643
- Location
- Massachusetts (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
madame_zora
Sexy Member
sometimes, I just wanna be kissed.
... not very often, though. most of the time I'm ... much more lewd :9
[post=293696]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]*Licks Dr. Rock on the face*
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Well, Bush has moved up in the world I see. As a younger man he was only able to bankrupt one company after another. Now he has plans to bankrupt Social Security. Meanwhile, he is at an alarming rate bankrupting this nation. If his policies continue much longer, America will be totally bankrupt. When the dollar plunges in value and it will, we will be paying much higher prices for all those imported goods from China and Japan and inflation will be rampant. But there won't be much we can do about it because China and Japan will hold all the American dollars. In other words they have been the bank and it will be a sad day when they forclose on America.
