wbarnhill said:
Ed, despite your continuous attack,
The wording of your post may have potentially exposed this website to a libel claim. I'd rather not see this website go the way of Avweb. If my wish to have correct and accurate knowledge represented is a "continuous attack", well, so be it.
I'm going to clarify this and go to sleep. Libel requires malicious intent and a claim of fact for general damages.
Actually, you should do some research on the above as it is totally false. I will provide you some references in a minute.
For a claim of fact to exist, it must be reasonably expected that I am knowledgeable on the topic.
Also totally false. Your being admittedly clueless in the topic is prima facia proof or reckless negligence, an important and compelling factor in proving libel and in gaining general damages--the really expensive, painful type of damages. Again, I'll post the references in a minute.
You don't listen to a comedian making fun of someone famous and take him seriously. Same applies here.
First, you aren't a known comedian. Second, it was not obvious to this reader that your post was humor. Both of those elements would place the post into the potential libel bin.
The absolute worst you could possibly state is that I inadvertently made a libelous statement, which would allow damages only for actual harm.
Incorrect again. The fact that you were admittedly clueless as to the facts yet intentionally made the statement anyhow would or could be grounds for finding "reckless negligence" (BTW, this goes back to what I previously referred to as "..or should reasonably have known to be false")--if you were as clueless to the actual facts as you admit to being then you were indeed on the face of it recklessly negligent.
The fact is that I didn't make a libelous statement.
That is up for interpretation
I used a slang term that you are obviously not aware of,
So far you have yet to provide proof that the slang exists. Those that have offered proof have offered adjective forms of the word--not the noun you used. The noun form--slang or otherwise--has been consistently shown defined as I have stated elsewhere.
or are just continuing to make asinine statements to get to me. In either case, you're making quite a case out of this for nothing. But if it makes you feel better...
It would make me feel better if I didn't see a statement that for all I know and read about libel falls clearly within the boundary of libel. It didn't take much more than that to destroy Avweb of old.
Here is the legal information/definitions to support my stamens above, along with some relevant comments:
1. "Another defense that is presented by accused media companies is "fault"—a series of court rulings led by
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (
376 U.S. 254) established that for a plaintiff to win a libel ruling against a newspaper, "actual malice" or
"reckless negligence" must be proved on the part of the paper if the statement in question is about a
public official or
public figure."
Bill's "I know nothing about the subject" statement would appear to me to fall solidly into "reckless negligence"--he admits he didn't bother to do the simplest research.
2. "
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion.
While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages."
"Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages."
So much for Bill's claim that there must be malicious intent to establish libel, as well as his claim that the plaintiff's complaint would be limited to specific damages.
3. "
libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another
which accuses him/her of a crime , immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business.
Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses."
Last I checked, prostitution & pandering (the technical term for "pimping") are crimes in 49 states (and three counties in the 50th) and AFIAK were crimes at the time of Lindberg's life. Ergo, no proof of malice required. Bill's statement could quite easily be construed as libel per se and there for subject to general and specific damages; this being totally contrary to Bill's claims of any action being limited to specific damages.
In summary, my concern, and why I initially tried to hint, "Hey, was "Pimp" really the word you wanted to use?", is that we need to be careful about statements which might bring a libel claim against this webboard. Web providers in general have greater immunity than most other mediums, but if the POA owners are stung by a $70/month income shortfall, imagine how much defending a megabuck lawsuit could do to the owners' cash flow.
No, that's not it either. Apparently the word first appeared (in print) in four hundred years ago. Possibly derived either from the French pimper "to dress elegantly," or pimpreneau "a knave, rascall, varlet, scoundrell."