Zimmerman Goes On With Suing NBC (drugs, O.J., concealed carry, v)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Defamation law holds public figures to a different standard, making it much more difficult for them to sue. But I suppose Obama could sue Fox if he really wanted to come down to that level.
George is not a public figure. The media that defamed him, is the same one that made him a public figure.
You cannot make someone a public figure just to defame them.
These news stations should be heavily punished for committing acts like this.
they should be fined and NBC News should be taken off the air for a month.
Too bad you know nothing about caselaw in the First Amendment. In the SCOTUS case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, "an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department."
The court ruled "(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283." The court vote was 9-0.
What that means is that to be awarded damages against the Press, for which TV news is included, Zimmerman would have to prove that not only were statements incorrect but that the TV station did so with "actual malice". That is usually a steep hurdle to prove.
What that means is that to be awarded damages against the Press, for which TV news is included, Zimmerman would have to prove that not only were statements incorrect but that the TV station did so with malice. That is usually a steep hurdle to prove.
It is evident the statements were intentionally incorrect and done to harm the reputation of George.
It is evident the statements were intentionally incorrect and done to harm the reputation of George.
It would be up to the plaintiff to prove what you said was "done to harm the reputation of George." Unless you are a mind-reader, you have no idea what was their intention. They'll say we were reporting the news based upon a source.
Too bad you know nothing about caselaw in the First Amendment. In the SCOTUS case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, "an elected official in Montgomery, Alabama, brought suit in a state court alleging that he had been libeled by an advertisement in corporate petitioner's newspaper, the text of which appeared over the names of the four individual petitioners and many others. The advertisement included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement; respondent claimed the statements referred to him because his duties included supervision of the police department."
The court ruled "(c) Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless "actual malice" -- knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth -- is alleged and proved. Pp. 279-283." The court vote was 9-0.
What that means is that to be awarded damages against the Press, for which TV news is included, Zimmerman would have to prove that not only were statements incorrect but that the TV station did so with "actual malice". That is usually a steep hurdle to prove.
No. I linked the case law to this earlier and the burden is different for a public figure like you cited above and some schmo off the street like Richard Jewell or Zimmerman. (which I also linked to).
This was all covered on page 6 or 7 of the thread and is supported with links to the case law and Richard Jewells successful recoveries of money from the news media.
There are literally dozens of examples if you google around a bit. (these two are public personas, Richard Jewell (go check wiki or my old link) is the closest comparison to Zimmerman.)
Sure. Trayvon's parents will support that, after all, they can attach the payment in their civil suit. I don't see Zimmerman ever benefitting from this at all. Trayvon's parents will no doubt have a civil suit pending, and snatch any money for a long, long time.
Since the finding was "justifiable homicide", Zimmerman will be immune from civil litigation related to or arising from the death of Trayvon Martin under the Florida Castle Doctrine.
That said, libel and slander are tough cases to make.
Zimmerman was the only one with injuries.
Zimmerman answered all of the cops' questions.
Zimmerman passed a lie detector test.
The witnesses corroborates GZ statement.
The cops believed that Zimmerman was truthful.
The state circumvented the grand jury.
The state withheld evidence.
The state fired the whistle blower.
Oh, Bullsh*t.
Here's the real beef:
Trayvon Martin was walking back to his dad's house. He was unarmed and bothering no one. Zimmerman saw Martin, a young black male, and immediately profiled him as a criminal. He stalked Martin, despite being told explicitly by police not to do so. At some point Martin, like any normal human being, confronted the man who was stalking him for no good reason. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would have given him a well-deserved beat-down, and this sniveling little cowards would have gone home with his tail between his legs. But Zimmerman did have a gun, so shot Martin dead.
Zimmerman alone set in motion the chain of events that ended in Martin's murder. He chose to stalk Martin against police orders and is 100% responsible for everything that followed from that. The rest if just a bunch of racist rationalization.
NBC has deep pockets and is the darling of Dear Leader.
Right on both points. Not that this was their first incident of such bias, but it was so overt. Zimmerman simply responded to questions about the reported perp's race...and what he was wearing (which,l BTW, elicited the "hoodie" response that some have used as another "indication" of Zimmerman's bias). Notice, also, that the network is still disputing what happened. That's probably because it's par for the course for them.
As far as any monetary damages go, I'd wager that Martin's family will end up garnishing them. Sadly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
