Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
By this definition the libel laws in the US are very fair: if you make statements about someone that results in them suffering financal loss, they can sue. If they can prove you said it and prove it caused them damage, they are almost certainly going to win unless you can prove what you said is true (or that you reasonably believed it was true).
I have seen several people from the UK discussing the difference between US and UK libel laws, and they all felt the primary difference is that in the US it isn't libel if it is clearly a statement of opinion.
So the question remains: what specific changes are you advocating for?
That's the exact opposite of what American libel laws entail.
Fair laws require parties to have some proof before making malicious and/or derogatory statements. That goes for both accusers and the accused. They favour the party that has truth on their side and it works quite well in other civilized countries.
By this definition the libel laws in the US are very fair: if you make statements about someone that results in them suffering financal loss, they can sue. If they can prove you said it and prove it caused them damage, they are almost certainly going to win unless you can prove what you said is true (or that you reasonably believed it was true).
I have seen several people from the UK discussing the difference between US and UK libel laws, and they all felt the primary difference is that in the US it isn't libel if it is clearly a statement of opinion.
So the question remains: what specific changes are you advocating for?
That's the exact opposite of what American libel laws entail.
More specifically, American law requires proof that you knowingly released false information with the intention of causing harm.
These two requirements doom most libel litigation.
I believe case by case. Each case is different. Each case should be dealt with individually, so every actor has an equal chance to get a character or not get a character in a game.
Case by case if someone is accused of having indecent images of children on their computer and victims of pedophilia come forward then I don't think there should be anyway back from that regardless who you are or what you have done for TV, Movies, Music etc
Regarding politics or some old fashioned world views I can look past them shaking my head for me I think the only crime that should blacklist you whether it's on this game, tv show etc is what I stated in the first paragraph.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
You can't say the accusers have no proof when their word and testimony is proof, especially when multiple accusers make similar accusations.
I'm sorry, but no. An accusation is not proof. It is a suspicion, an impetus to find proof, but it is not proof in and of itself. It is a very dangerous mindset to say otherwise.
You are right that a single accusation is not proof and I try not to make a determination one way or the other when there is just one accuser. But when you have many people coming forward all saying the same accusation against someone, that in my mind is far different. Especially if those people are people that can be proven to know and worked with that individual. When there are multiple people that are credible making the same accusations about an individual, I tend to believe them. Most of these accusations cannot be proven one way or the other even in court except by hearing testimony from multiple people and then having people decide who they believe. There often isn't any other evidence that can be provided but testimony from people. What redress do victims have when the crimes that happened to them have exceeded the statute of limitations except to go public to try to get others to know what happened to them so that others are not similarly attacked? Accusations made in public and not under oath in a courtroom where the accused can defend himself/herself are not enough to put someone in jail, but those accused in public are not being thrown in jail. When the accusers are believed, the accused perpetrators are being at least temporarily removed from positions of power so that they cannot be in a position to attack others. It is too early to say that those that have been accused have had their careers irrevocably destroyed. We don't know what the future holds for those accused and whether some who are forced out will not be able to come back. Mel Gibson said horrible anti-semitic remarks years back and yet he was able to come back and make movies again. Which celebrities do people feel were wrongly accused and had their careers irrevocably damaged for untrue allegations? George Takei's reputation has been tarnished by the allegation against him but I don't think his career has been ended. Harvey Weinstein will probably be permanently gone from Hollywood but I don't think anyone is defending his innocence. Bill Cosby should be gone from Hollywood in my opinion but he continues to work touring comedy clubs across the country. This is a very tough issue and I can see both sides of it. I think on the whole the #metoo movement has done far more good than harm. Is it perfect? No. But no system will be. One side will have a greater influence and protections in their favor, the accusers or the accused. I side with the accusers. The #metoo movement has been great for stopping some true monsters and getting the public to talk about how we can make society and the legal system better. I think we need to continue because there are far too many assaults and rapes going on that are being hidden and covered up. Too many people using their power to hurt those without power.
Don't worry it will be like that in those places soon enough.
The law probably won't change. It's been in place for hundreds of years and been successful. The American founding fathers simply made a huge mistake, but it may get rectified soon.
It's awfully strange to see Trump doing something positive and progressive, but I hope that he is successful. It's equally strange to see the other (supposedly progressive) party opposing him. It just goes to show that they like to oppose each other for no apparent reason.
You realize what's driving that is the fact he's upset that investigative journalists keep reporting on all of his terrible behavior stretching back decades? Or simply that they are reporting anything less than flattering to him or his Administration, whatsoever? His interest in "reforming" libel laws in the United States is both an intimidation tactic as well as a representation of his genuine interest in obscuring the truth, and making the truth much more difficult to report without the threat of adverse legal action.
For what it's worth, these laws are unlikely to go anywhere. The statutes and case law surrounding libel and slander have gone through the wringer and been threatened multiple times throughout US history, in almost every generation, and they are still standing. The more Trump mewls about it, the weaker he looks (as President of the United States, his speech is essentially the most powerful and protected of all), and the more money and support will flow to civil liberties and free speech organizations. It's a total loser of an issue.
Positive reforms can come from less than honourable motives. That's been proven multiple times throughout history.
Free speech shouldn't include making damaging claims against someone without any proof. That's been a cornerstone of modern democracy since the Ancient Greeks and has remained so to this day, with the exception of a notable few.
There's nothing in British style libel law that would prevent journalists from reporting negative stories about Trump (god knows there are a lot of them), as long as they have done their due diligence in obtaining correct information.
What fuels so much of this 'fake news' and distrust of the media is the fact that there is no filter. Consumers have no way of knowing if the news that they see is true, like they do in Canada. There's political spin here, don't get me wrong, but they are all reporting on the same set of facts.
You can't say the accusers have no proof when their word and testimony is proof, especially when multiple accusers make similar accusations.
I'm sorry, but no. An accusation is not proof. It is a suspicion, an impetus to find proof, but it is not proof in and of itself. It is a very dangerous mindset to say otherwise.
You are right that a single accusation is not proof and I try not to make a determination one way or the other when there is just one accuser. But when you have many people coming forward all saying the same accusation against someone, that in my mind is far different. Especially if those people are people that can be proven to know and worked with that individual. When there are multiple people that are credible making the same accusations about an individual, I tend to believe them. Most of these accusations cannot be proven one way or the other even in court except by hearing testimony from multiple people and then having people decide who they believe. There often isn't any other evidence that can be provided but testimony from people. What redress do victims have when the crimes that happened to them have exceeded the statute of limitations except to go public to try to get others to know what happened to them so that others are not similarly attacked? Accusations made in public and not under oath in a courtroom where the accused can defend himself/herself are not enough to put someone in jail, but those accused in public are not being thrown in jail. When the accusers are believed, the accused perpetrators are being at least temporarily removed from positions of power so that they cannot be in a position to attack others. It is too early to say that those that have been accused have had their careers irrevocably destroyed. We don't know what the future holds for those accused and whether some who are forced out will not be able to come back. Mel Gibson said horrible anti-semitic remarks years back and yet he was able to come back and make movies again. Which celebrities do people feel were wrongly accused and had their careers irrevocably damaged for untrue allegations? George Takei's reputation has been tarnished by the allegation against him but I don't think his career has been ended. Harvey Weinstein will probably be permanently gone from Hollywood but I don't think anyone is defending his innocence. Bill Cosby should be gone from Hollywood in my opinion but he continues to work touring comedy clubs across the country. This is a very tough issue and I can see both sides of it. I think on the whole the #metoo movement has done far more good than harm. Is it perfect? No. But no system will be. One side will have a greater influence and protections in their favor, the accusers or the accused. I side with the accusers. The #metoo movement has been great for stopping some true monsters and getting the public to talk about how we can make society and the legal system better. I think we need to continue because there are far too many assaults and rapes going on that are being hidden and covered up. Too many people using their power to hurt those without power.
I believe that's in the vein of corroboration of testimony.
And from a legal standpoint, that's how it came down for Nassar.
And from my perspective that's how it should work. Testimony, judges, and some due process.
I get that that doesn't work sometimes, and other measures might need to be taken. However, I hope the exposure leads more to reformation of how folks in authority respond to situations in the workplace, school, etc and that the public square does not become where everything needs to be vetted every time. That also can be cruel to victims. I feel that there simply needs to be a realization that there is no good reason to cover up.
There will always be people in power who will abuse that power. It's in the same neighborhood as those who kill someone off and get it covered up due to money or other powers that they have -- or harmful drug trafficing or weapons. Or non-sexual related slavery. It's all wrong, but folks in power in all societies, whether it be royals, capitalists or oligarchs, will always have some segment of their population that will try to abuse said power. Maybe a media spotlight is needed simply because of the power that they wield.
In the US we have a President and a former President who are seemingly still scott free from their misconduct accusations, and #metoo seems to not be able to touch one and is leaving the other completely alone.
I voted no, not because offenders shouldn't have consequences but rather because in often the cases we are talking about here, these people have been in/done some egregious things but I don't see it being relevant to the work product they produced. For contrast, some of the big names as of late have been Weinstein, Nassar, and a few years ago Sandusky, all of whom used their position as a means of gaining access to prospective/actualized victims. One could make an argument that Takei may have used his success as a tool of compulsion, but truthfully I haven't followed that case well enough to know the details. I can certainly understand why some would not want to patronize someone who was a known or suspect offender. I have nothing but sympathy for those who have been abused, and nothing but respect for the people who are willing to speak about their experiences, here and elsewhere. I'm an unapologetic capitalist, and so being able to not contribute to something you don't believe in is something I am all for.
For the sake of the current discussion, I will say that the strength of the current movement is that it challenges not the individual but the entire culture of abuse and harassment. There has been a cultural standard of dismissing allegations which is why this is such a big deal. I certainly wouldn't call Weinstein or Nassar or Sandusky good exemplars of what the average offender population looks like, mainly because they had more power and access to potential or actualized victims than any sex offender I've ever know, and I've been in the business of working with them for a decade now. If anything, we are catching these super-affluent offenders up with the rest of our de-integrated offender population who are subject to both punishment in the courts as well as social crucifixion (that we don't want to admit interferes with actual rehabilitation).
However whether we are talking about the super pathological ones like these three or your "garden variety" middle class lower-risk offender, rarely will they just admit what they've done and most cases are convicted by getting them to plea bargain out because they are convinced that admission will gain them leniency or their history is messy enough for a prosecutor to be confident that a judge or jury will convict anyway. Evidence is light in most cases, and is often reliant on testimony not evidence. Some of them are straight up psychopaths, others are just too scared of the consequences (legal and social) to admit they have made one of the most fracked up choices in their life. Thus, we are typically left with allegations that we have to make a choice whether or not to believe. Also, from the people I know who do work outside of the US, the US, UK, and Canada are not grossly different in this respect.
My 8-Point STT Strategy:
1. Voyage.
2. Have fun. If something isn't fun, don't do it.
3. Only pursue characters I care about.
4. Contribute to the fleet.
5. No more spending beyond monthly cards.
6. Have fun.
7. Voyage.
8. Have fun!
Where a statement on a matter of public concern expresses or reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Private individuals usually only need to show a level of fault akin to negligence.
That's the exact opposite of what American libel laws entail.
Would you care to cite sources to support that opinion?
But more importantly, it does not address the question I asked: what changes are you advocating?
Look at the post right above yours for a source. You don't have to be a legal scholar to understand this.
To put it very simply, the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence in the United States.
In Canada/UK (for example), the onus is on the accuser to provide facts to back up their statements. I advocate that the US adopts British style laws.
Where I live, we generally believe that allowing people to make malicious statements without some evidence is a negative thing for society and even a crime in some cases. I can't speak for overall American morality, but most people that I have met would share this view.
Where a statement on a matter of public concern expresses or reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Private individuals usually only need to show a level of fault akin to negligence.
Cherry picking quotes doesn't help you.
From your own link:
The First Amendment requires that in defamation actions brought by public figures, the plaintiff must prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made with “actual malice,” meaning that it was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Private individuals usually only need to show a level of fault akin to negligence. But if the statement at issue does not make substantial danger to reputation apparent, even private plaintiffs would need to prove malice.
You're trying to prove the mindset of the defendant, which amounts to finding an admission of guilt which would be admissible in court.
Cherry picking doesn't help you much, either: also present in that link is a long list of types of statement where the damage is assumed, such as "crimes of moral turpitude".
Suddenly the mindset of the defendant doesn't matter, because the "substantial danger to reputation" IS "apparent".
The mindset of the defendant only matters if the comments themselves wander into the grey area where they aren't clearly defamatory.
Look at the post right above yours for a source. You don't have to be a legal scholar to understand this.
I have made several posts in this thrrad, and I can't figure out which one you mean.
To put it very simply, the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence in the United States.
In the letter of the law, perhaps, but not in practice.
If the defendant called the plaintiff a "theif", for example, the plaintiff would not be expected to show reports from every jurisdiction showing he had no such conviction. His statement that he has no such conviction is evidence enough, unless the defense can produce evidence to rebut that.
Fro the article I linked to anove:
On the one hand, there is the First Amendment’s fundamental protection of free speech. On the other hand, there is a common law obligation not to abuse the First Amendment with unjustified attacks against the reputation and dignity of others. Defamation law attempts to accommodate these seemingly antithetical interests by providing a legal remedy for persons subjected to false and defamatory statements while limiting the range of statements considered defamatory and actionable.
So it seems we're all on the same page about not letting people make false statements to the detriment of others.
If the defendant called the plaintiff a "theif", for example, the plaintiff would not be expected to show reports from every jurisdiction showing he had no such conviction. His statement that he has no such conviction is evidence enough, unless the defense can produce evidence to rebut that.
Without getting into too much legal jargon here, that's not how burden of proof works. Actual malice or reckless disregard is always required, and the standard differs whether the person against whom the comments were made is a public figure or not. It's very difficult to win a libel case if you are a public figure.
Also, someone linked a Virginia defamation lawyer's website, but that's a) not necessarily the law in other jurisdictions and b) not necessarily the law in VA, since it's basically someone's advertisement and not a statute or case.
Source: I am a practicing lawyer, though not in defamation law. And this isn't legal advice.
I don't think we'll get anywhere by arguing the details of defamation standards in different states. I do want to note that in the US, due process is something you are due if you are being deprived of life, liberty or property by the state. Legally, it doesn't apply if no actual cases are brought. (and that's in the constitution)
Look at the post right above yours for a source. You don't have to be a legal scholar to understand this.
I have made several posts in this thrrad, and I can't figure out which one you mean.
To put it very simply, the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence in the United States.
In the letter of the law, perhaps, but not in practice.
If the defendant called the plaintiff a "theif", for example, the plaintiff would not be expected to show reports from every jurisdiction showing he had no such conviction. His statement that he has no such conviction is evidence enough, unless the defense can produce evidence to rebut that.
Fro the article I linked to anove:
On the one hand, there is the First Amendment’s fundamental protection of free speech. On the other hand, there is a common law obligation not to abuse the First Amendment with unjustified attacks against the reputation and dignity of others. Defamation law attempts to accommodate these seemingly antithetical interests by providing a legal remedy for persons subjected to false and defamatory statements while limiting the range of statements considered defamatory and actionable.
So it seems we're all on the same page about not letting people make false statements to the detriment of others.
That's not true. I'm certain that you are trolling, but read the post directly above this one for an explanation of why you are wrong from a practicing lawyer.
Cherry picking doesn't help you much, either: also present in that link is a long list of types of statement where the damage is assumed, such as "crimes of moral turpitude".
Suddenly the mindset of the defendant doesn't matter, because the "substantial danger to reputation" IS "apparent".
The mindset of the defendant only matters if the comments themselves wander into the grey area where they aren't clearly defamatory.
Yep. Long list where ALL elements must be met to make a legal case. One fails and the defendant wins.
I've just highlighted the biggest one that's shoots most down. At a minimum private figures must prove negligence.
Everything else you've thrown out is in addition, not in place of.
I gotta say, no matter where you are, I think legal systems are really badly flawed (that's from personal experience) and I don't trust them AT ALL. Legal stuff scares the **tsk tsk** out of me quite frankly. I've seen it go wrong enough times that I don't want anything to do with the legal system. I'd rather sort **tsk tsk** out myself, and have done. Do it right, and that's often the best solution.
I've had someone very close to me wrongly accused of abuse, and the damage it has done to them has been extreme. I would be extremely cautious in outright believing a single person's accusations. In fact, until someone has a history of such things a suspension of belief is IMPERATIVE. You cannot, simply CANNOT believe an accusation without more information. It may be terrible for victims but for the wrongly accused it is equally as bad. Equally. I'm absolutely certain of that.
This doesn't mean accusations shouldn't be taken very seriously, but I do think if there is proof that it was malicious those people should suffer the consequences that would have happened to the wrongly accused. As we all know, prosecutions for abuse are difficult to achieve, and I believe prosecutions for the accusers would be equally as difficult to achieve. But it does happen, and the consequences can be absolutely devastating, so it needs to be there.
I gotta say, no matter where you are, I think legal systems are really badly flawed (that's from personal experience) and I don't trust them AT ALL. Legal stuff scares the *left-handed Duck-Billed Platypus* out of me quite frankly. I've seen it go wrong enough times that I don't want anything to do with the legal system. I'd rather sort *left-handed Duck-Billed Platypus* out myself, and have done. Do it right, and that's often the best solution.
I've had someone very close to me wrongly accused of abuse, and the damage it has done to them has been extreme. I would be extremely cautious in outright believing a single person's accusations. In fact, until someone has a history of such things a suspension of belief is IMPERATIVE. You cannot, simply CANNOT believe an accusation without more information. It may be terrible for victims but for the wrongly accused it is equally as bad. Equally. I'm absolutely certain of that.
This doesn't mean accusations shouldn't be taken very seriously, but I do think if there is proof that it was malicious those people should suffer the consequences that would have happened to the wrongly accused. As we all know, prosecutions for abuse are difficult to achieve, and I believe prosecutions for the accusers would be equally as difficult to achieve. But it does happen, and the consequences can be absolutely devastating, so it needs to be there.
A friend of mine lost custody of his children because his ex-wife claimed he abused them (he did not, and she was genuinely not a good person). The family court believed her though, largely because she was the mother and because he had no way to prove otherwise. It was his word against hers and he lost.
So yes, it is very dangerous to believe one single accuser, lives can be ruined. And I'm saying this as a victim who was never able to see justice done.
“Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.” - Elim Garak
Cardassian wishlist: Tora Ziyal - Thanks!
Natima Lang
Empok Nor Garak
Tekeny Ghemor
Mira
Makbar
Dejar
Ulani Belor
While I have pointed out times you made an unsupported assertion, and when you didn't answer a direct question, I have never publicly attributed a motive to your actions much less engaged in name calling.
It was wrong of you to say that. Not just because it is an ad hominem attack, but also because it is simply rude.
But it is a bit funny that you'd do in in a discussion of defamation and libel.
While I have pointed out times you made an unsupported assertion, and when you didn't answer a direct question, I have never publicly attributed a motive to your actions much less engaged in name calling.
It was wrong of you to say that. Not just because it is an ad hominem attack, but also because it is simply rude.
But it is a bit funny that you'd do in in a discussion of defamation and libel.
Passive aggressive trolling is just as bad. You were given evidence to show that you had it wrong several times and continued to dismiss it to go on these nonsensical rants that derail the conversation for everyone and confuse the issue for genuinely interested readers. This will be my final post in response to you.
Yes, Barclay is. Too bad the actor isn't as good a person. And in his case, it's more than his political views.
I am, unfortunately. Spend a few minutes browsing the comments on any left-leaning American Facebook page and you'll see a lot of that kind of talk, just as you would see a lot of liberals = communists talk on right-leaning pages. It’s sad that mudslinging seems to be not important than solutions...
Comments
Taking a page out of the DB handbook, perhaps?
That's the exact opposite of what American libel laws entail.
If you're not up on using the internet to destroy the ability of a person to earn an income beyond an entry level position? Sure.
Much has changed in the past 10 years. Not everyone realizes how much.
More specifically, American law requires proof that you knowingly released false information with the intention of causing harm.
These two requirements doom most libel litigation.
I stand corrected. I totally misread the results, thinking the 4 votes above were for the 'no' vote % below. Thanks for pointing that out!
Regarding politics or some old fashioned world views I can look past them shaking my head for me I think the only crime that should blacklist you whether it's on this game, tv show etc is what I stated in the first paragraph.
I believe that's in the vein of corroboration of testimony.
And from a legal standpoint, that's how it came down for Nassar.
And from my perspective that's how it should work. Testimony, judges, and some due process.
I get that that doesn't work sometimes, and other measures might need to be taken. However, I hope the exposure leads more to reformation of how folks in authority respond to situations in the workplace, school, etc and that the public square does not become where everything needs to be vetted every time. That also can be cruel to victims. I feel that there simply needs to be a realization that there is no good reason to cover up.
There will always be people in power who will abuse that power. It's in the same neighborhood as those who kill someone off and get it covered up due to money or other powers that they have -- or harmful drug trafficing or weapons. Or non-sexual related slavery. It's all wrong, but folks in power in all societies, whether it be royals, capitalists or oligarchs, will always have some segment of their population that will try to abuse said power. Maybe a media spotlight is needed simply because of the power that they wield.
In the US we have a President and a former President who are seemingly still scott free from their misconduct accusations, and #metoo seems to not be able to touch one and is leaving the other completely alone.
For the sake of the current discussion, I will say that the strength of the current movement is that it challenges not the individual but the entire culture of abuse and harassment. There has been a cultural standard of dismissing allegations which is why this is such a big deal. I certainly wouldn't call Weinstein or Nassar or Sandusky good exemplars of what the average offender population looks like, mainly because they had more power and access to potential or actualized victims than any sex offender I've ever know, and I've been in the business of working with them for a decade now. If anything, we are catching these super-affluent offenders up with the rest of our de-integrated offender population who are subject to both punishment in the courts as well as social crucifixion (that we don't want to admit interferes with actual rehabilitation).
However whether we are talking about the super pathological ones like these three or your "garden variety" middle class lower-risk offender, rarely will they just admit what they've done and most cases are convicted by getting them to plea bargain out because they are convinced that admission will gain them leniency or their history is messy enough for a prosecutor to be confident that a judge or jury will convict anyway. Evidence is light in most cases, and is often reliant on testimony not evidence. Some of them are straight up psychopaths, others are just too scared of the consequences (legal and social) to admit they have made one of the most fracked up choices in their life. Thus, we are typically left with allegations that we have to make a choice whether or not to believe. Also, from the people I know who do work outside of the US, the US, UK, and Canada are not grossly different in this respect.
1. Voyage.
2. Have fun. If something isn't fun, don't do it.
3. Only pursue characters I care about.
4. Contribute to the fleet.
5. No more spending beyond monthly cards.
6. Have fun.
7. Voyage.
8. Have fun!
To me, it seems like people are equating “issues” with “criminally prosecutable behavior”, when those two terms are not the same.
Task Force Pike/Garrett's Giants, Founder
Task Force April, Fleet Founder Emeritus
Newfie Central, Squad Founder, In Memoriam
https://www.virginiadefamationlawyer.com/2013/02/defamation-of-character-libel-and-slander-law-in-virginia.html , the legal requirement is:
But more importantly, it does not address the question I asked: what changes are you advocating?
Wouldn't that be the definition of case by case?
Look at the post right above yours for a source. You don't have to be a legal scholar to understand this.
To put it very simply, the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence in the United States.
In Canada/UK (for example), the onus is on the accuser to provide facts to back up their statements. I advocate that the US adopts British style laws.
Where I live, we generally believe that allowing people to make malicious statements without some evidence is a negative thing for society and even a crime in some cases. I can't speak for overall American morality, but most people that I have met would share this view.
Cherry picking quotes doesn't help you.
From your own link:
You're trying to prove the mindset of the defendant, which amounts to finding an admission of guilt which would be admissible in court.
Suddenly the mindset of the defendant doesn't matter, because the "substantial danger to reputation" IS "apparent".
The mindset of the defendant only matters if the comments themselves wander into the grey area where they aren't clearly defamatory.
In the letter of the law, perhaps, but not in practice.
If the defendant called the plaintiff a "theif", for example, the plaintiff would not be expected to show reports from every jurisdiction showing he had no such conviction. His statement that he has no such conviction is evidence enough, unless the defense can produce evidence to rebut that.
Fro the article I linked to anove: So it seems we're all on the same page about not letting people make false statements to the detriment of others.
Without getting into too much legal jargon here, that's not how burden of proof works. Actual malice or reckless disregard is always required, and the standard differs whether the person against whom the comments were made is a public figure or not. It's very difficult to win a libel case if you are a public figure.
Also, someone linked a Virginia defamation lawyer's website, but that's a) not necessarily the law in other jurisdictions and b) not necessarily the law in VA, since it's basically someone's advertisement and not a statute or case.
Source: I am a practicing lawyer, though not in defamation law. And this isn't legal advice.
I don't think we'll get anywhere by arguing the details of defamation standards in different states. I do want to note that in the US, due process is something you are due if you are being deprived of life, liberty or property by the state. Legally, it doesn't apply if no actual cases are brought. (and that's in the constitution)
That's not true. I'm certain that you are trolling, but read the post directly above this one for an explanation of why you are wrong from a practicing lawyer.
Yep. Long list where ALL elements must be met to make a legal case. One fails and the defendant wins.
I've just highlighted the biggest one that's shoots most down. At a minimum private figures must prove negligence.
Everything else you've thrown out is in addition, not in place of.
I've had someone very close to me wrongly accused of abuse, and the damage it has done to them has been extreme. I would be extremely cautious in outright believing a single person's accusations. In fact, until someone has a history of such things a suspension of belief is IMPERATIVE. You cannot, simply CANNOT believe an accusation without more information. It may be terrible for victims but for the wrongly accused it is equally as bad. Equally. I'm absolutely certain of that.
This doesn't mean accusations shouldn't be taken very seriously, but I do think if there is proof that it was malicious those people should suffer the consequences that would have happened to the wrongly accused. As we all know, prosecutions for abuse are difficult to achieve, and I believe prosecutions for the accusers would be equally as difficult to achieve. But it does happen, and the consequences can be absolutely devastating, so it needs to be there.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
A friend of mine lost custody of his children because his ex-wife claimed he abused them (he did not, and she was genuinely not a good person). The family court believed her though, largely because she was the mother and because he had no way to prove otherwise. It was his word against hers and he lost.
So yes, it is very dangerous to believe one single accuser, lives can be ruined. And I'm saying this as a victim who was never able to see justice done.
Cardassian wishlist:
Tora Ziyal - Thanks!
Natima Lang
Empok Nor Garak
Tekeny Ghemor
Mira
Makbar
Dejar
Ulani Belor
Second Star to the Right - Join Today!
I shall have to research the matter further.
While I have pointed out times you made an unsupported assertion, and when you didn't answer a direct question, I have never publicly attributed a motive to your actions much less engaged in name calling.
It was wrong of you to say that. Not just because it is an ad hominem attack, but also because it is simply rude.
But it is a bit funny that you'd do in in a discussion of defamation and libel.
Passive aggressive trolling is just as bad. You were given evidence to show that you had it wrong several times and continued to dismiss it to go on these nonsensical rants that derail the conversation for everyone and confuse the issue for genuinely interested readers. This will be my final post in response to you.
This entire tangent is off topic to the thread.
I am, unfortunately. Spend a few minutes browsing the comments on any left-leaning American Facebook page and you'll see a lot of that kind of talk, just as you would see a lot of liberals = communists talk on right-leaning pages. It’s sad that mudslinging seems to be not important than solutions...
Hey, did you know that humans shed 8 pounds of skin every year?
Closing this thread as it has run its course. ˜Shan