jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Nov1.175408.4690@uncecs.edu> seals@uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals) writes: > But I feel that once he intimated to us (via the net) that he >knew something and even disclosed the subject of what he knew, he >opened the door for speculation and conjecture. My understanding of libel laws, and Mike will correct me I am sure, is that repeating a libelous statement is itself libel. You can speculate all you want, but you do so with your own neck. This is why I will continue to mail little reminders to each and every individual who posts anything in this thread containing any reference to me or Len's problems. And I will repeat one last time, the article which certain people alleged that I posted contains some information which was incorrect. Since it seems that everyone does not read every article, and therefore may not have seen the retraction that I posted shortly after being made aware of the facts, I'd like to repeat what I wrote earlier. Len has never been arrested or convicted of any of the activities which were contained in that article. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
weindlin@motcid.UUCP (Mark L. Weindling) (11/02/90)
Excuse me for interrupting, particularly with my rather complete lack of legal knowledge, but I seem to recall from a number of well-publicized legal battles that to convice someone of libel/slander the plaintiff must PROVE (note the word PROVE, not imply or suggest) two basic points: The statements of the defendant damaged the credibility or well-being of the plaintiff AND The statements of the defendant were known to be untrue and WERE CALCULATED TO INJURE either the credibility or well-being of the plaintiff. In short, from my recollection, I cannot be sued unless I intentionally spread known untruths which injured the individual who brought the suit. I can say ANYTHING I wish, provided that my intent is not to hurt. Such lawsuits are rather difficult to win, if memory serves. Correct me if I am wrong... -- -------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Mark L. Weindling | Motorola, Inc., United States Digital Cellular ..!uunet!motcid!weindlin |"Life is both too long and too short to spend (708) 632-4369 | with any but the best." - R. Underhill
john@qip.UUCP (John Moore) (11/04/90)
In article <5015@ash21.UUCP> weindlin@motcid.UUCP (Mark L. Weindling) writes:
]In short, from my recollection, I cannot be sued unless I
]intentionally spread known untruths which injured the individual who
]brought the suit. I can say ANYTHING I wish, provided that my intent
You can be sued for anything! However, if we had reasonable judges (ie
those who do not have the interests of trial lawyers at heart), people
bringing such suits would normally end up paying damages for bringing
a frivolous suit. As it is now, if someone has enough money, they can
harrass you for a long time, forcing you to spend a lot of money on legal
fees, and there is nothing you can do about it.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.Thomas.Farmer@actrix.co.nz (Thomas Farmer) (11/07/90)
from the American disease.
Symptoms mainly consist of threats to sue each otjher for everything
the other person has as well as much macho/legal posturing.
My sympathies to all afflicted, and hopes for a quick recovery.
(My deepest sympathies to the American economy which is showing
signs of suffering from legal arteriosclerosis. RIP.)
--
Yes folks, here it is! The unofficial .sig for Sleeping Beagle!
mail tfarmer@actrix.co.nz (I think)
(P.S. I live in a sane society. I don't NEED a disclaimer!)asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) (11/10/90)
In article <5334@qip.UUCP> john@qip.UUCP (John Moore) writes: > In article <5015@ash21.UUCP> weindlin@motcid.UUCP (Mark L. Weindling) writes: > ] In short, from my recollection, I cannot be sued unless I > ] intentionally spread known untruths which injured the individual who > ] brought the suit. I can say ANYTHING I wish, provided that my intent > > You can be sued for anything! [...] This is true ... currently, judges only judge that the suit was drawn "correctly", that is, it's all good 'n' legal. They don't (or can't, not sure which) judge whether or not a suit is frivolous, without hearing the case. That is, I don't think it's in their job description to look at a lawsuit and say it should never have existed to begin with. Frivolous suits have as much right to heard as serious ones, even tho the judge may throw it out *after it gets a hearing*. (You've already spent your dough, tho) > [...] As it is now, if someone has enough money, they can > harrass you for a long time, forcing you to spend a lot of money on legal > fees, and there is nothing you can do about it. No, there is nothing *legal* you can do about it!! >,-) Seriously, you can counter-sue, and get injunctions and what-have-you thrown against the party who's harrassing you. It's this threat (and the fact that most people don't have "enough money", and the ones who do have better things to do with it) that prevents most frivolous suits. Unfortunately, enuff squeak thru that it may be worth modifying the system somehow. How, is a whole 'nother topic. -- asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) ========================= Opinions are Mine, Typos belong to /usr/ucb/vi "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no longer in service. Please check the value of pi, or see your SysOp for assistance." .hplabs!felix!asylvain ================================================