Comment by Gud
2 years ago
I am reminded of Hunter S Thompsons euology for Nixon. Good Riddance! Should have died in jail. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...
2 years ago
I am reminded of Hunter S Thompsons euology for Nixon. Good Riddance! Should have died in jail. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-...
Wow. What a refreshing directness:
> He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.
How come they could publish this without getting sued into oblivion?
There's a little known law in the USA which states the following;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It's not always followed but it does remain fairly important in the mind of American citizens
The first amendment prevents censorship, by the US government, of the press or individual speech. It doesn't prevent an individual or legal person from suing over something written or said in public about them.
What would stop the Atlantic from "getting sued into oblivion" is that the person that the article was about (Nixon) was dead when it was written, and the dead can't be defamed.
5 replies →
Public figures, especially elected officials, have a significantly reduced protections from defamation in the US.
Not only is truth an absolute defense to defamation in the US, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's statements were made with actual malice if the plaintiff is a public official. Merely being unsure if something is true or being negligent in determining the truth of it is not sufficient.
Furthermore, nearly all civil lawsuits require that actual damages be done in order to have standing at all. That is, you need a dollar amount because that's basically the only remedy that a civil court can make. That means that if the damage is due to lost reputation and your reputation has already been thoroughly soiled, it will be incredibly difficult to put a dollar amount to it.
So:
1. It has to be actually false as shown by the plaintiff
2. It has to be known by the defendant to be false as shown by the plaintiff
3. It has to be made intentionally to harm the subject as shown by the plaintiff
4. The statements must have actually harmed the subject in monetary terms as shown by the plaintiff
In Germany, it is literally the authorities and conscientious journalist, who live in fear of being sued by the criminals, rather than the criminals being in fear of being sued themselves.
It is agonizing to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-3-9vtpjdU
You can't libel the dead
The dead have estates.
4 replies →
Except in the Philippines, where it is a crime to commit libel/slander against a dead person (under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code). Although actual lawsuits from the family of a dead person are quite rare.
The judge who would give them punitive fines and forcing them to pay opposing party expenses.
A. Different times. B. Hunter was a bit of a hack who was not taken seriously. His work is just a couple notches above mad magazine. It is entertaining satire that is obviously without connection to reality.
I say this as a big fan of his work; but it is not to be taken seriously.