- 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
Poli board attorneys, question about defamation/slander law.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:43 pm
I read earlier about that c_nt Pelosi calling Bannon a white supremacist a couple of times during a press conference.
Can he sue her for defamation/slander and would he have a good case?
I would love to see this happen.
Can he sue her for defamation/slander and would he have a good case?
I would love to see this happen.
11
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:45 pm to bhtigerfan
Generally, and if I remember correctly, since he is a public figure, he has to prove that the lie was put forth with actual malice and has to prove damages.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:45 pm to bhtigerfan
Wouldn't he have to prove damages? Serious question, I am equally ignorant.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:46 pm to bhtigerfan
I keep hearing this repeatedly by libs, and I have no idea where it comes from.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:48 pm to bhtigerfan
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. So, she'd have to prove that it was true. Then, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice, so he'd have to show that she was doing it just to destroy his reputation. A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice. His case is weird because he's obviously a private citizen, but idk how being in the WH without being elected affects his "public" position.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 1:49 pm to LSUtoTulaneLaw
He qualifies as a public figure.
If the accusation qualifies as a defamation of his professional/business reputation he does not have to prove damages. One of four exceptions to proving damages.
If the accusation qualifies as a defamation of his professional/business reputation he does not have to prove damages. One of four exceptions to proving damages.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:08 pm to LSUtoTulaneLaw
quote:So, if Bannon came to you, would you take the case or tell him it doesn't have merit?
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. So, she'd have to prove that it was true. Then, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice, so he'd have to show that she was doing it just to destroy his reputation. A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice. His case is weird because he's obviously a private citizen, but idk how being in the WH without being elected affects his "public" position.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:10 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Can he sue her for defamation/slander and would he have a good case?
He'd have a good case IMO, at least to get over Summary Judgment and put the screws to her a bit.
The PROBLEM is he would have to do extensive Discovery, and that would drag he, his associates, and maybe even Trump into depositions and the like.
That isn't happening.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:19 pm to bhtigerfan
How is it defamation if it has truth?
He wouldn't dare sue because he would lose and embarrass himself and the President when they slaughter him in discovery.
He wouldn't dare sue because he would lose and embarrass himself and the President when they slaughter him in discovery.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:20 pm to YStar
quote:
How is it defamation if it has truth?
Back up your statement through actual, factual information.
We'll wait.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:21 pm to YStar
quote:Bitch please.
How is it defamation if it has truth?
What evidence do you have that Bannon is a white supremacist? Please enlighten us.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:22 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:I'd laugh and ask him if he was joking
So, if Bannon came to you, would you take the case or tell him it doesn't have merit?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:23 pm to JuiceTerry
I believe the OP was looking for lawyers to answer.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:24 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
The PROBLEM is he would have to do extensive Discovery, and that would drag he, his associates, and maybe even Trump into depositions and the like.
lol yup. Oh lawd the things that get dragged out during Discovery. Really opened my eyes once I started getting involved with that stuff from the security/forensics side of the house.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:26 pm to Centinel
quote:
lol yup. Oh lawd the things that get dragged out during Discovery. Really opened my eyes once I started getting involved with that stuff from the security/forensics side of the house.
I love fricking with people in depos. It is one of life's few joys.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:28 pm to Fun Bunch
Uh you mean beside the fact he presided over that nationalist hate filled site Breitbart??
Yeah yeah I know. They aren't racist! The only ones who are, are the ones that dare to diasagree with them!
I dont know why I bother. To those like you Stormfront isn't racist either. Heck wouldn't be surprised if many of you are long term members.
Yeah yeah I know. They aren't racist! The only ones who are, are the ones that dare to diasagree with them!
I dont know why I bother. To those like you Stormfront isn't racist either. Heck wouldn't be surprised if many of you are long term members.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:30 pm to DownSouthJukin
quote:
he has to prove that the lie was put forth with actual malice
It sure as hell wasn't put forth to make him look good.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:34 pm to YStar
quote:
Uh you mean beside the fact he presided over that nationalist hate filled site Breitbart??
Still zero evidence that Bannon is a "white surpemacist".
Please provide, actual, objective evidence of such.
Your assertion that Breitbart is "hate filled" is a subjective assertion and provides no evidence.
Try again.
Don't worry, we'll wait.
Forever.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 2:45 pm to YStar
quote:
YStar
quote:Do you know the saying, "We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you"?
Uh you mean beside the fact he presided over that nationalist hate filled site Breitbart??
Yeah yeah I know. They aren't racist! The only ones who are, are the ones that dare to diasagree with them!
I dont know why I bother. To those like you Stormfront isn't racist either. Heck wouldn't be surprised if many of you are long term members.
Well this is not one of those instances. We're laughing at you.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 2:48 pm
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News