- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why hasnt Moore filed a libel or slander suit against WaPo?
Posted on 11/16/17 at 11:06 pm to mahdragonz
Posted on 11/16/17 at 11:06 pm to mahdragonz
Because Moore is considered a "public figure" and his lawyers know the burden of proof is so high it would be a waste of time.
" In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice.
"The plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation."
" In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice.
"The plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant's state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn't like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation."
Posted on 11/16/17 at 11:37 pm to EA6B
Damn, that case came out of Alabama. Alabama sheriff won a huge verdict over Martin Luther King and the N. Y. Times.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:02 am to EA6B
quote:
Because Moore is considered a "public figure" and his lawyers know the burden of proof is so high it would be a waste of time.
His lawyers are apparently shite. Read the letter they sent the Washington Post.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News