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. "
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."
Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel:
Legally, you cannot libel the dead, so the discussion pretty durned well ends there. TWI has no legal standing to sue to protect Wierwille's reputation because, legally, Wierwille HAS no reputation. Reputation, in the law, expires on the same date as the person who has the reputation. Legacy has no legal standing.
That said, I feel perfectly confident in calling VPW a smooth-talking snake oil salesman who abused his position as a minister and twisted the plain meaning of scripture in order to satisfy his lust for sex, money and power.
b-b-b-but Raf!!! WD says it IS so... that you can get in trouble for calling someone who is dead a sociopathic serial rapist who used The Bible and a worthless doctorate to ravage his way through folks who innocently wanted to serve God...
"your honor, my (ahem) client is entirely innocent of being an abusive, obnoxious, mean spirited, hateful, plagiaristic and narccisic serial rapist. We seek damages, to the tune of $100,000,000.00."
"but your client is dead, is he not? the defense has provided the court with the death certificate.."
"true, your honor, but that is the whole point, isn't it? How could a dead man possibly perform any of these foul actions?"
By the way, you can express a legal opinion, even as fact, so long as you are not doing so under a veneer of "objectivity." For example, I can say "O.J. Simpson killed two people and got away with it." He can't sue me for that. But if I wrote it as a journalist in a non-opinion story, I could get sued.
Legally, you cannot libel the dead, so the discussion pretty durned well ends there. TWI has no legal standing to sue to protect Wierwille's reputation because, legally, Wierwille HAS no reputation. Reputation, in the law, expires on the same date as the person who has the reputation. Legacy has no legal standing.
That said, I feel perfectly confident in calling VPW a smooth-talking snake oil salesman who abused his position as a minister and twisted the plain meaning of scripture in order to satisfy his lust for sex, money and power.
Sue away!
Now that's a statement made by someone who has extensively practiced using words for a living!!! Nicely done.
Here's what WD cited in post #372 on the Boot the WW Apologists thread:
Well I have a couple of legs I stand on............. but then there is this as well
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
How can one "blacken the memory"-if the memory includes rape or abuse?
AFAIK everyone is trying to get an accurate picture so any memories that are held of VP will be truthful, accurate, full and appropriate.
It would be lying about his "legacy" if rape, abuse, alcoholism, plagiarism, and molesting his daughters was NOT mentioned as part of the whole picture
the way WD portrays it, it would be against the law to say anything against Caligula
the way WD portrays it, it would be against the law to say anything against Caligula
Lettuce not forget that Oprah was sued or charged (I forget which) for defaming BEEF in Texas!!! And they actually TRIED her.
However, Mstar clearly identifies the dilemma, or at least gives a reasonable example thereof.
And even though Raf did not cite a reference, given his profession (I have seen his byline on the sun-sentinal's website), and his professional affiliations, I would hold his insight FAR higher (in credibility) than just any joe blow quoting something he found by doing a google search.
And, as I said before, there are NUMEROUS reasons that the apparent statutes quoted by WD are of no practical use (cannot be enforced) and therefore are as if they do not exist.
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.
“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
Having posted all that, I will say that while it proves that in a court of law, the truth of the allegations can be used as a defense against libel, the point is still that this is not a court of law. I posted this in response to WD on the "We Are Not Going To Get Along" thread:
There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice."
You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth.
As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that.
You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?
Well, I can't speak for the laws in those states, as I am not familiar with them.
The AP Stylebook and Libel Manual (1992) states:
Libel of the Dead
In general, there can be no defemation of the dead. No one can sue on behalf of a deceased individual on the basis of false and defamatory statements made about that individual. Some states, however, permit an ongoing libel suit to continue after the death of the complaining person.
But that's old. So I looked for a more recent AP Stylebook. In it, I find no mention of libeling the dead.
But I'd rather move away from that argument anyway, as it would justify saying ANYTHING about VPW, whether true or knowingly false (e.g., VPW raped pigs while teaching).
The real issue being asked here seems to be: Is it libel to call VPW a rapist? Let's assume VPW is alive, if only because we all agree the matter of whether he is breathing at this time has no bearing on our moral obligation to be truthful and/or to make our statements/opinions in good faith.
In order to prevail in a libel suit, the plaintiff has to prove five things (according to the AP Stylebook 2007):
1. A defamatory statement was made.
2. The defamatory statement is a matter of fact, not opinion.
3. The defamatory statement is false.
4. The defamatory is about the plaintiff.
5. The defamatory statement was published with a requisite degree of fault.
If I were counsel for the defense, I would:
Concede item [1].
Argue that under item [2], the statement is a legal opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.
Call the witnesses to prove the statement is true under item [3].
Concede item [4].
Argue under item [5] that because I firmly believe the accounts of the witnesses who testified for item [3], even if I may be wrong about item [3] and the court may disagree with me on item [2], I made the statement in good faith. Thus there was no "actual malice," which in legal terms means the statement was not made with the knowledge that it was false.
I'm not a judge, so I can't tell you whether my "defense" would prevail, or whether that would vary state to state.
Context is also key. By itself, the statement "VPW is a rapist" would probably be libelous. However, this board can be considered, in many ways, an ongoing conversation, so it's perfectly fair for the person who makes the statement to defend himself by citing the information that led him to this conclusion. Thus, even though the words "VPW is a rapist" were used, the full meaning of the statement in the ongoing conversation is "I believe VPW is a rapist based on the previously discussed 'testimony' of a witness I trust."
Now, if VPW were alive, he could sue over the statement that he is a rapist. But if he were to do so, he would subject himself to cross-examination from the witnesses who've now come forward. They, in turn, would need to drop their anonymity (most media would not run their names anyway). The person who made the statement "VPW is a rapist" would need to prove to a jury either that the statement is true or that he had compelling reason to believe the statement is true.
I don't know if this post answers anything, but at least it gives some perspective from someone who writes about people's alleged criminal behavior all the time.
It is frustrating that we even have to go into this much detail about the legalities of libel when that was NEVER THE POINT. The point was whether the testimonies of people involved should be considered, in light of speaking up for the truth, against the false image of VPW that still prevails. WhiteDove kept bringing up the court of law stuff (even though several people pointed out that this is not a court of law), and now here we are discussing the law in detail. It looks like he succeeded in derailing the original point again.
It is frustrating that we even have to go into this much detail about the legalities of libel when that was NEVER THE POINT.
When it comes to TWI, victims, the law and most things along this subject (and my persona favorite = Harry Potter ) There is no authority in dove's words.
It looks like he succeeded in derailing the original point again.
Precisely why he, Oldiesman, Whatthe hey, Mike and others should be completely ignored on these subjects - if no one acknowledges them they have nothing to contribute or fight against.
On other subjects they are delightful... well, some of them are...
It is frustrating that we even have to go into this much detail about the legalities of libel when that was NEVER THE POINT. The point was whether the testimonies of people involved should be considered, in light of speaking up for the truth, against the false image of VPW that still prevails. WhiteDove kept bringing up the court of law stuff (even though several people pointed out that this is not a court of law), and now here we are discussing the law in detail. It looks like he succeeded in derailing the original point again.
Standard tactic is to use a logical fallacy when the facts don't fit the view.
I wasn't all that enamored with the guy when he was alive. I was never sure what all the fuss was about. He was a lecherous, vile, stinky, coarse, crass guy that had a huge sense of entitlement - and that's what I thought of him BEFORE I knew that he screwed around. The fact that he was a plagiarist with a diploma mill doctorate was also well known outside Way circles, but I chose to ignore those things. After all, the guy took Calvin's idea of irrevocable grace to a whole new level. That was something I could go along with as I wanted to continue doing what I was doing and still know that I was gonna sit in the kitchen.
Standard tactic is to use a logical fallacy when the facts don't fit the view.
I wasn't all that enamored with the guy when he was alive. I was never sure what all the fuss was about. He was a lecherous, vile, stinky, coarse, crass guy that had a huge sense of entitlement - and that's what I thought of him BEFORE I knew that he screwed around. The fact that he was a plagiarist with a diploma mill doctorate was also well known outside Way circles, but I chose to ignore those things. After all, the guy took Calvin's idea of irrevocable grace to a whole new level. That was something I could go along with as I wanted to continue doing what I was doing and still know that I was gonna sit in the kitchen.
Who is going to collect? Can the TWI sue? Or can thr family of VPW can sue? I do not believe anyone is going to bring a lawsuit foward. Because after everything I read here about the abuse of VPW. Correct me if I am wrong all it takes is one person to testfy that what happen is true and the whole thing is thrown out.
Legally, you cannot libel the dead, so the discussion pretty durned well ends there. TWI has no legal standing to sue to protect Wierwille's reputation because, legally, Wierwille HAS no reputation. Reputation, in the law, expires on the same date as the person who has the reputation. Legacy has no legal standing.
That said, I feel perfectly confident in calling VPW a smooth-talking snake oil salesman who abused his position as a minister and twisted the plain meaning of scripture in order to satisfy his lust for sex, money and power.
I look at this a little different way. If I am not convinced someone is telling the truth about abuse, it means I don't know either way. And that is why I have generally kept any doubts to myself; there have been a few exceptions, but mostly I keep them in private messages. Why? Because even if I don't know for sure, I don't want to risk hurting someone by advertising my doubts.
UNLESS...if I have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that people were NOT abused...then I don't risk hurting someone by expressing my doubts. Maybe that should be our question. Do you have proof that the abuse did NOT happen? then why risk hurting people...even one person...by emphasizing so often and emphatically that abuse hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile, a lot of my doubts have been recently removed.
I don't think this is the issue. What a person believes is irrelevant it is wrong to libel a person in a public forum unless one has documentation to back up their claim. I might think that OJ murdered his wife but the fact is he was not found guilty of the crime. As such one can not say he was a murderer as factual. one could offer an opinion that they personally think so, but it is not a fact as he has no such charge to his record I would defend his right not to be referred to as a murderer despite what I may think personally. We have correct words to use until such time as one is found guilty of a crime. Feelings are not a part of speaking correctly.
I might think that OJ murdered his wife but the fact is he was not found guilty of the crime. As such one can not say he was a murderer as factual. one could offer an opinion that they personally think so, but it is not a fact as he has no such charge to his record...
Was OJ a murderer?...The determining factor as to whether or not it is a FACT that OJ committed murder is not what his public record says but whether or not he committed the murder.
Public records could be wrong or incomplete...if a tree falls in the forest, does it really fall if there is no public record of it?
I don't think there is anyone here who is making acusations that Wierwille was convicted in a court of law...is there?
If my next door neighbor walked over and punched me in the mouth...and I did nothing legally about it...there would be no public record of it...BUT it would still be a fact the he punched me in the mouth...of course, it wouldn't be a fact to WhiteDove because there would be no public record of it and he would be demanding proof that it indeed happened.
This type of thinking seems counterproductive and circular to me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
14
14
8
Popular Days
Sep 11
23
Sep 10
19
Jul 15
10
Sep 12
9
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 8 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
WhiteDove 14 posts
geisha779 8 posts
Popular Days
Sep 11 2008
23 posts
Sep 10 2008
19 posts
Jul 15 2008
10 posts
Sep 12 2008
9 posts
WordWolf
All right, that's four sources.
(There's MANY more, which we can also discuss, but 4 sources should be MORE than enough-
especially if all 4 ARE IN AGREEMENT.
Ok, what's the relevant part of each definition?
==============
Here's what Law.com says...
"http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||
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. "
Here's what it says about 'libel per se':
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sel...4&bold=||||
"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."
Here's what Legal Dictionary.com says about libel:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel
"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."
Here's what Nolo.com says about libel:
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/76...E0D93B952DE16E7
"An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation
or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person
who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken,
but not published in writing or broadcast through the media)."
Here's what FindLaw says about libel:
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/r...623b89f93d49694
"libel
['li-bel]
Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases)
2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words
specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt"
======
For those of you who missed it,
for something to be libel, it has to be
A) negative
B) injurious to reputation
C) FALSE
Therefore, for someone to claim that vpw has been libelled,
they must FIRST say
"what has been said about vpw is a lie."
To claim he has been libelled is to claim the so-called libellous statements are LIES, UNTRUE,
and anyone attesting to their truth must be LIARS,
since they say "I assert this to be true",
and the claimant is saying "No, that is untrue. If you insist it's true, you're lying."
Since twi is currently run by their lawyers, it is easy to consider this one.
Would twi bring someone to court because there are MANY people claiming
"I know vpw is a rapist, I know this PERSONALLY"?
To do so, they would have to assert the statement was LIBEL.
To do THAT, they would have to assert the statement was A LIE.
Then both sides would have to go to court to attempt to prove their case.
The side asserting vpw is a RAPIST would get to bring up women who were raped,
and people who they spoke to immediately after they were raped,
and people who knew vpw was having sex with women under his authority outside his marriage,
and people who counselled women who were previously raped by vpw.
The number of people who could come forth and show that there is a VERY consistent picture
of vpw as a man who CLAIMED he was godly, and yet, when no one was looking, saw nothing
wrong with himself having sex with women in his congregation, and using force or DRUGS
when they were not consenting in ANY way to have sex with him,
would be considerable.
Psychological experts would be brought forth, showing how even the cases that were not QUITE
so cut-and-dried as rape, actually were so, due to power inequities and misuse of authority.
And on top of all that, what do you think the media would make of it?
twi would lose the legal case, lose money and time, and open themselves up to national scrutiny
for defending a founder who was a rapist, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
twi's lawyers aren't that stupid. They don't want to take on UNWINNABLE CASES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Legally, you cannot libel the dead, so the discussion pretty durned well ends there. TWI has no legal standing to sue to protect Wierwille's reputation because, legally, Wierwille HAS no reputation. Reputation, in the law, expires on the same date as the person who has the reputation. Legacy has no legal standing.
That said, I feel perfectly confident in calling VPW a smooth-talking snake oil salesman who abused his position as a minister and twisted the plain meaning of scripture in order to satisfy his lust for sex, money and power.
Sue away!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
b-b-b-but Raf!!! WD says it IS so... that you can get in trouble for calling someone who is dead a sociopathic serial rapist who used The Bible and a worthless doctorate to ravage his way through folks who innocently wanted to serve God...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
*lawyer stands to make his motion*
"your honor, my (ahem) client is entirely innocent of being an abusive, obnoxious, mean spirited, hateful, plagiaristic and narccisic serial rapist. We seek damages, to the tune of $100,000,000.00."
"but your client is dead, is he not? the defense has provided the court with the death certificate.."
"true, your honor, but that is the whole point, isn't it? How could a dead man possibly perform any of these foul actions?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Then why haven't we gotten into trouble?
By the way, you can express a legal opinion, even as fact, so long as you are not doing so under a veneer of "objectivity." For example, I can say "O.J. Simpson killed two people and got away with it." He can't sue me for that. But if I wrote it as a journalist in a non-opinion story, I could get sued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Now that's a statement made by someone who has extensively practiced using words for a living!!! Nicely done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Here's what WD cited in post #372 on the Boot the WW Apologists thread:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
How can one "blacken the memory"-if the memory includes rape or abuse?
AFAIK everyone is trying to get an accurate picture so any memories that are held of VP will be truthful, accurate, full and appropriate.
It would be lying about his "legacy" if rape, abuse, alcoholism, plagiarism, and molesting his daughters was NOT mentioned as part of the whole picture
the way WD portrays it, it would be against the law to say anything against Caligula
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Lettuce not forget that Oprah was sued or charged (I forget which) for defaming BEEF in Texas!!! And they actually TRIED her.
However, Mstar clearly identifies the dilemma, or at least gives a reasonable example thereof.
And even though Raf did not cite a reference, given his profession (I have seen his byline on the sun-sentinal's website), and his professional affiliations, I would hold his insight FAR higher (in credibility) than just any joe blow quoting something he found by doing a google search.
And, as I said before, there are NUMEROUS reasons that the apparent statutes quoted by WD are of no practical use (cannot be enforced) and therefore are as if they do not exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
WD posted this in another thread:
However, the rest of those citations should be considered. The following is from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17263:
Idaho
Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005).
“Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802.
Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803.
“An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804.
It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806.
“True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807.
Colorado
“(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.
(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005)
Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972).
Kansas
“(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.
(b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.
Also, the following is from the Ohio code, VP's old stomping grounds (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2739):
2739.02 Defenses in actions for libel or slander.
In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Having posted all that, I will say that while it proves that in a court of law, the truth of the allegations can be used as a defense against libel, the point is still that this is not a court of law. I posted this in response to WD on the "We Are Not Going To Get Along" thread:
So far he has not responded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
...and he won't, at least not directly.
It's just a game he plays... that's the way he is... living somewhere near that great river in Egypt...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, I can't speak for the laws in those states, as I am not familiar with them.
The AP Stylebook and Libel Manual (1992) states:
But that's old. So I looked for a more recent AP Stylebook. In it, I find no mention of libeling the dead.
But I'd rather move away from that argument anyway, as it would justify saying ANYTHING about VPW, whether true or knowingly false (e.g., VPW raped pigs while teaching).
The real issue being asked here seems to be: Is it libel to call VPW a rapist? Let's assume VPW is alive, if only because we all agree the matter of whether he is breathing at this time has no bearing on our moral obligation to be truthful and/or to make our statements/opinions in good faith.
In order to prevail in a libel suit, the plaintiff has to prove five things (according to the AP Stylebook 2007):
If I were counsel for the defense, I would:
Concede item [1].
Argue that under item [2], the statement is a legal opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.
Call the witnesses to prove the statement is true under item [3].
Concede item [4].
Argue under item [5] that because I firmly believe the accounts of the witnesses who testified for item [3], even if I may be wrong about item [3] and the court may disagree with me on item [2], I made the statement in good faith. Thus there was no "actual malice," which in legal terms means the statement was not made with the knowledge that it was false.
I'm not a judge, so I can't tell you whether my "defense" would prevail, or whether that would vary state to state.
Context is also key. By itself, the statement "VPW is a rapist" would probably be libelous. However, this board can be considered, in many ways, an ongoing conversation, so it's perfectly fair for the person who makes the statement to defend himself by citing the information that led him to this conclusion. Thus, even though the words "VPW is a rapist" were used, the full meaning of the statement in the ongoing conversation is "I believe VPW is a rapist based on the previously discussed 'testimony' of a witness I trust."
Now, if VPW were alive, he could sue over the statement that he is a rapist. But if he were to do so, he would subject himself to cross-examination from the witnesses who've now come forward. They, in turn, would need to drop their anonymity (most media would not run their names anyway). The person who made the statement "VPW is a rapist" would need to prove to a jury either that the statement is true or that he had compelling reason to believe the statement is true.
I don't know if this post answers anything, but at least it gives some perspective from someone who writes about people's alleged criminal behavior all the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
It is frustrating that we even have to go into this much detail about the legalities of libel when that was NEVER THE POINT. The point was whether the testimonies of people involved should be considered, in light of speaking up for the truth, against the false image of VPW that still prevails. WhiteDove kept bringing up the court of law stuff (even though several people pointed out that this is not a court of law), and now here we are discussing the law in detail. It looks like he succeeded in derailing the original point again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
When it comes to TWI, victims, the law and most things along this subject (and my persona favorite = Harry Potter
) There is no authority in dove's words.
Precisely why he, Oldiesman, Whatthe hey, Mike and others should be completely ignored on these subjects - if no one acknowledges them they have nothing to contribute or fight against.
On other subjects they are delightful... well, some of them are...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Just wondering, Belle, what does he say about Harry Potter that you disagree with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Standard tactic is to use a logical fallacy when the facts don't fit the view.
I wasn't all that enamored with the guy when he was alive. I was never sure what all the fuss was about. He was a lecherous, vile, stinky, coarse, crass guy that had a huge sense of entitlement - and that's what I thought of him BEFORE I knew that he screwed around. The fact that he was a plagiarist with a diploma mill doctorate was also well known outside Way circles, but I chose to ignore those things. After all, the guy took Calvin's idea of irrevocable grace to a whole new level. That was something I could go along with as I wanted to continue doing what I was doing and still know that I was gonna sit in the kitchen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Tz you're killing me this evening !!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Exactly! That's why many of us got involved, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyunknown
Who is going to collect? Can the TWI sue? Or can thr family of VPW can sue? I do not believe anyone is going to bring a lawsuit foward. Because after everything I read here about the abuse of VPW. Correct me if I am wrong all it takes is one person to testfy that what happen is true and the whole thing is thrown out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I don't think this is the issue. What a person believes is irrelevant it is wrong to libel a person in a public forum unless one has documentation to back up their claim. I might think that OJ murdered his wife but the fact is he was not found guilty of the crime. As such one can not say he was a murderer as factual. one could offer an opinion that they personally think so, but it is not a fact as he has no such charge to his record I would defend his right not to be referred to as a murderer despite what I may think personally. We have correct words to use until such time as one is found guilty of a crime. Feelings are not a part of speaking correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Someone seems to want to continue this discussion....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Was OJ a murderer?...The determining factor as to whether or not it is a FACT that OJ committed murder is not what his public record says but whether or not he committed the murder.
Public records could be wrong or incomplete...if a tree falls in the forest, does it really fall if there is no public record of it?
I don't think there is anyone here who is making acusations that Wierwille was convicted in a court of law...is there?
If my next door neighbor walked over and punched me in the mouth...and I did nothing legally about it...there would be no public record of it...BUT it would still be a fact the he punched me in the mouth...of course, it wouldn't be a fact to WhiteDove because there would be no public record of it and he would be demanding proof that it indeed happened.
This type of thinking seems counterproductive and circular to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.