Re: kathLOON DickINSANE

a_weisman_at_yahoo.com
Date: 03/28/05 

Date: 28 Mar 2005 13:59:53 -0800

eugeneshapiroisapig wrote:
> you're right, I haven't researched this issue very much. I depend on
> guidance from a friend who is a newspaper editor. I'm not worried
about
> my screenname at all.

> In fact, most of the LD personalities have injected themselves
> into a public debate by publishing opinions, making speeches some of
> which could be considered defamatory toward LD patients, hiring PR
> firms, giving newspaper and television interviews, testifying to
> government entities, participating in government processes such as
> grant review, etc.

That does NOT necessarily qualify them as "public figures" or even
"limited public figures."

I dunno who amongst them hired PR firms (other than maybe tufts for
allen steere?)

Making speeches is part of their jobs.

I doubt most of em would qualify as public figures.

Their statements can't be "defamatory towards LYme patients" to be
actionable. They have to specifically defame one or more individuals
not a group of generic patients.

> I'm pretty sure that in a suit of this nature the burden lies on
> the defendant to prove the accuracy of a statement, not on the
> plaintiff to prove the inaccuracy.

Again in civil cases the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. In this
case proving something is defamatory it was published and then as to
damages.

If a plaintiff cannot prove that something is untrue, their case fails.

That is NOT a burden on the defendant in a technical sense. It is the
plaintiff's burden including proving something is untrue (if true it
cannot be defamatory).

> On the internet, confusing jurisdictional issues arise because
the
> internet is not a "place" per se. Did the libel occur in colorado, or
> in florida??? The distinction is important because laws differ unless
> you are in federal court.

Eugene there are established tests for determining jurisdiction
(actually this is venue). Let's say you form a contract with someone
from another state. Where does jurisdiction lie? The answer is where
the contract is made in either jurisdiction. Also one can sue based on
"minimun contacts" with a jurisdiction including availing themselves of
the benefits of a jurisdiction.

In a case of harassment by internet for example jurisdiction lies where
the message was posted from or received.

This isn't particularly "confusing" to the law any more than a hundred
situations PRIOR to the internet and the law has established tests for
determining when and where jurisdiction is proper.

Yes laws differ from state to state. Sometimes more sometimes less. And
in Federal court often times state laws are being applied. So let's say
a citizen of arizona sues a citizen of colorado for something that
happened in new mexico. Assuming the amount in controversy is
sufficient ($75,000 or more). They can sue in federal court using
"diversity jurisdiction."

As to what state's laws would be applied, that depends. It could be
arizona it could be new mexico or it could be colorado.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CCW only for to/from range?
    ... Dave here are links to your State Laws that address concealed carry to ... For all the laws concerning weapons in your state refer to ... within a county, city and county, or municipal jurisdiction or in or ... criminal penalties because he or she travels within a jurisdiction or ...
    (rec.guns)
  • Re: Croiset threatening me via email
    ... >> on a server in New Jersey fell within their jurisdiction: ... where is something on the internet published? ... >> we the publishers are? ... >> laws, where they are read, not where they are written." ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: oil substitutes
    ... Plus, you're also assuming that describing what the controversy is centered on means describing the crimes involved in detail -- I don't agree, since I'm not writing an essay or an editorial, just a Usenet post. ... committed by international mail can be prosecuted only by one of the nations involved, which means either that the US has no jurisdiction or that Canada didn't. ... As I understand it, extradition law applies when the act is illegal in both nations, and when the penalties are reasonably commensurate as well, and that's a central issue in this case -- whether the US can successfully use the Canadian equivalent of long-ignored blue laws in an extradition case. ... What if the woman was Spinachovan as well? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: How do I know if I am being hacked[violated]?
    ... >> this continent. ... > you are not violating any laws in YOUR jurisdiction (where you ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)