Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62

Thread: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

  1. #51
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    Why do you hate the law?
    What about my post makes you think I hate the law?

  2. #52
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    What about my post makes you think I hate the law?
    An individual has filed suit claiming the she has suffered some damage. You're not interested in permitting the case to be settled between the parties or in court. Instead, you've already called it frivolous. As well, your comments appear to suggest that so long as some facts are accurate, it doesn't matter if the paper publishes an article implying something not supported by those facts actually happened.

    A, B, C, and D happened. Yet, you're comfortable with the media publishing an article drawing an implication not supported by those facts because a,b,c, and d did, in fact occur. Further, you're comfortable with denying an individual any recourse in the event that the article was inaccurate.

  3. #53
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    So you concede damages.

    What do you think the damages are worth? Of course, if not $27 million?
    Assuming that the court finds in her favor, I'd say it's worth maybe $300K - $500K. Certainly not $27 million. That's even more than most people get from wrongful death lawsuits.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #54
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by JMak View Post
    An individual has filed suit claiming the she has suffered some damage. You're not interested in permitting the case to be settled between the parties or in court. Instead, you've already called it frivolous. As well, your comments appear to suggest that so long as some facts are accurate, it doesn't matter if the paper publishes an article implying something not supported by those facts actually happened.

    A, B, C, and D happened. Yet, you're comfortable with the media publishing an article drawing an implication not supported by those facts because a,b,c, and d did, in fact occur. Further, you're comfortable with denying an individual any recourse in the event that the article was inaccurate.
    You don't get it. You really don't. You seem to lack comprehension of what a claim for defamation entails. And I don't care to help you there. Bye bye

  5. #55
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    You don't get it. You really don't. You seem to lack comprehension of what a claim for defamation entails. And I don't care to help you there. Bye bye



    This is typical, he explains it well, and then you accuse him of a comprehension problem, then say you won't explain it, then run.....


    why?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #56
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    This is typical, he explains it well, and then you accuse him of a comprehension problem, then say you won't explain it, then run.....


    why?
    How did he explain it? I pointed out that if she LOST her defamation suit, she would get NO damages. The court or the jury would determine that what the NYT did was not defamation. It's that simple, Reverend.

    How he concluded that I hate the law is beyond me. It makes no sense to me. If the law is not on her side, she would not receive damages.

  7. #57
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,764

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    How did he explain it? I pointed out that if she LOST her defamation suit, she would get NO damages. The court or the jury would determine that what the NYT did was not defamation. It's that simple, Reverend.



    How he concluded that I hate the law is beyond me. It makes no sense to me. If the law is not on her side, she would not receive damages.

    You have a problem with it even going to court, no?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #58
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    It makes perfect sense to anyone with a brain.

    Conservatives think that people who's health is affected by a doctor shouldn't be able to sue, but some broad that gets wrote about in the Times deserves millions. Gimme a break hypocrites.
    I'm 100% in favor of people suing doctors and winning when the doctor has done something that injured the plaintiff in a fashion that he should be responsible for.

    I'm 100% opposed to people suing doctors when the doctor is not at fault.

    I'm 100% in favor of people suing publishers and winning when the publisher has done something that injured the plaintiff in a fashion that they should be responsible for.

    I'm 100% opposed to people suing publishers when the publisher is not at fault.

    Clear enough for you?


    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Yes, but the statements made by these former associates was corroborated.
    It doesn't matter if they were corroborated by other people if they turn out to have been false. And as far as I can tell, nobody told the times that they were having an affair, which is what the NYT clearly and explicitly inferred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    27 million for somebody talking about conflicts of interests you might have had? Are people in this country even remotely serious anymore?
    She's a successful lobbyist in her prime who makes her living based on her reputation and her influence. She's also a human being with a family and friends. She wakes up one day and there's a front page story accusing her of seducing and ****ing a 72 year old senator in order to get favors.

    You don't think that had a significant impact on her professional life, much less her personal life?

    If the Times is found to have defamed her, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see an award in the mid seven figures to account for future lost wages alone.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #59
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    It doesn't matter if they were corroborated by other people if they turn out to have been false. And as far as I can tell, nobody told the times that they were having an affair, which is what the NYT clearly and explicitly inferred.
    I agree, but when the statements are corroborated by different people, it only helps the NYT in publishing the statements. The more corroboration there is, the more credible the story is.

    I quoted this article earlier in this thread:

    Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at Tulane University, said key to Iseman's case will be how the court defines her — as a public figure or a private figure. Public figures have to meet a higher standard of proof, and show malice by a news outlet.

    Werhan also said the Times could be protected if it accurately quoted McCain's former aides about their perceptions of his relationship with Iseman.

    “If all those statements are true, then it seems to me the Times is not at fault for reporting that,” Werhan said.


    Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper
    My point is that if the NYT accurately reported what these former associates said, and such statements were corroborated by others, it will be VERY tough for Iseman to prove that such statements were false. I don't think she can do it.

  10. #60
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Lobbyist linked by Times to McCain sues paper

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    I agree, but when the statements are corroborated by different people, it only helps the NYT in publishing the statements. The more corroboration there is, the more credible the story is.

    I quoted this article earlier in this thread:

    My point is that if the NYT accurately reported what these former associates said, and such statements were corroborated by others, it will be VERY tough for Iseman to prove that such statements were false. I don't think she can do it.
    Even if the court says that she's a public figure, it seems reasonable that the court could find there was actual malice here. The NYT's own public editor acknowledged that they were unsure of the truth of some of the implications that they made.

    If the court doesn't find that she's a public figure, then all she has to prove is that the NYT was not reasonable in making its claims. The claims themself are defamation per se.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •