Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BigBird, post: 2592175, member: 4247"] The first test of “actual malice” (uttering falsely and knowing it to be false at the time) is such a tall test that it is met in comparatively few circumstances. The second test, “reckless disregard for truth” is also a very tall order (as it should be when the plaintiff is a public figure). If the defendant made his summary judgments (about the “atmosphere” and that Dawn promoted it) without ANY reasonable facts or even personal experiences or observations, Dawn has a shot. Otherwise, this suit is a waste of the court’s time. Further, to collect any damages, she must show that the AD’s remarks actually caused demonstrable harm to her. Defense council is likely to argue that this bit of legal theater has actually HELPED Dawn and SC by arousing and rallying the SC fanbase and cementing further Dawn’s “fighter” image. No damage equals no case. I should add that defamation law is a matter for each state to determine, according to its own laws and procedures. Most states are very similar in this regard, but exceptions exist. For example, in most states, truth is an ultimate defense. But in Louisiana it is not. And...defamation is the broad classification. It has two sub-types, libel and slander. Typically, libel is published (in some fixed or far-reaching form), while slander is typically spoken and/or ad libbed. Of the two, libel is considered the more severe act, as the potential for damage is greater (because the words don’t immediately evaporate as they are said). For this reason, in most states, a broadcast of defamatory remarks is classified as libel. This is a good thread. Many interesting and thoughtful posts. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach