OT Arch-Word of the Day, Juridically.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:35:45 +0200, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>> See how that works? :-)
>> [...]
>
>She explained the system in a similar case*:
>
> Alaca, if you don't see what the implication is
> of letting abusive lines of the person you
> answer to be standing and write your own line
> under, which juridically normally means that
> you agree if you don't say otherwise, then I
> can't help you understand what your own line
> meant not only to me but to other readers as
> well.(I am not talking of naysayers and
> abusers).

That doesn't even make any sense, but at least the thread title makes
sense now.

Juridical pertains to the operational structure of a legal body, such
as when the court is open, how it proceeds etc. This is a newsgroup,
juridical procedures are not applicable here. For example if a person
lies here, its a lie. But if a person lies in front of a court, IOW,
if a person commits a 'juridical' lie, then it is purgury. The case
against Libby is an example.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
"
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set
forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v
Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for
defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That
the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that
means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be
false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
truth.
"
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
"
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in
actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For
example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox
Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the
show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the
show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of
jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within
the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as
being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's
status as a "limited public figure".
"
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

IOW, as long as Inger continues to make the spurious claims about
people in a public forum, here, a concensus about her behavior, here,
that developes as a result of her behavior is immune from personal
injury laws as long as the effort of the jokes was not malice. Inger
has the right to leave this group, or simply read and not post.

If someone took it a step further, if they went in to contact her
husband or children and tried to disrupt a personal relationship or
they cast false allegations in her workplace, IOW there was a directed
or concerted effort to cause her malice, then the law would apply.
IOW bringing a persons family member name or their employers name
would represent potential defamation that causes due harm.

A person is responsible to some degree for their public perception. If
that person's behavior is such that the develope a concensus of
opinion of peoples, natural in the course of human activities, that is
derogatory to that person, sometimes deserved, sometimes not deserved
hardly matters . . . . . . . . . . It does not need to be said that a
person needs to be careful what they say in public and to control
their public behaviors as not to become a 'natural' *** of others
jokes. Exemplary behaviors are
1. Claiming you have evidence but never presenting it.
2. Claiming you have contacts in high places but never identifying
them.
3. Claiming you, as an untrained investigator, have more prowess in
the feild that a large number of trained investigators.
etc.

The above legal exclusion is not a license for verbal assualt, as it
is not the responsibility of an individual to make derogatory remarks
against another. The moral-ethical boundaries of a news group would
suggest a limit of such activities which beyond would disrupt the
content provisions of the group, causing the group not to function as
intended. Newgroups however cannot sue for libel, if they could Inger
would have been sued a long time ago. Therefore it is the
responsibility of those who understand the Mores (Doug, Tom, .....)
not to further aggrevate the problem.

And a warning:

"
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the
allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically,
the following may consititute defamation per se:

- Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
- Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
- Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted
disease;
- Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral
turpitude;
"

For fact I have witnessed two of the above committed against persons
defending their and their collegues work here. And one individual who
is constantly casting defamatory comments against professionals here,
those professionals could easily take a pretensive non-professional to
court. That they would want to, is another thing.

The provisions of the law vary in a juridical manner.
.

Quantcast