LogFAQs > #878227163

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Preibus says Trump has considered amending 1st Amendment
Saloonist 04/30/17 9:16:34 PM #37:	Bio1590 posted... Balkov posted... But you can already sue newspapers for libel. Didn't his wife literally just win a lawsuit based around exactly that? And Gawker too? THe libel laws only concern making knowingly false statements don't they? Iirc they also want to do away with "anonymous sources". The standard is actual malice which requires that the person publishing the allegedly libellous statement be shown to have made the statements "with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity". And the burden is on the plaintiff to prove these things which is an incredibly high bar because you have to prove another person had knowledge in their head or records contrary to what they said or meet the nebulous standard of reckless disregard. Even after somehow proving all that the plaintiff usually must then show that they actually suffered some sort of damage because of the statements. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878227163] in Preibus sa... [t:75297426]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bio1590 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Balkov posted...</cite> <quote>But you can already sue newspapers for libel. Didn't his wife literally just win a lawsuit based around exactly that? And Gawker too?</quote> THe libel laws only concern making knowingly false statements don't they? Iirc they also want to do away with "anonymous sources".</quote> The standard is actual malice which requires that the person publishing the allegedly libellous statement be shown to have made the statements "with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity". And the burden is on the plaintiff to prove these things which is an incredibly high bar because you have to prove another person had knowledge in their head or records contrary to what they said or meet the nebulous standard of reckless disregard. Even after somehow proving all that the plaintiff usually must then show that they actually suffered some sort of damage because of the statements. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1