jackalope
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,494
- Reaction score
- 1,328
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No offense, but hopefully we can get Right in here to talk about law things because this makes no sense.
Now, I understand that he would have to prove somehow there was some kind of legitimate negative effect upon him BASED on the statements for it to happen.
But how can one "prove" a negative. If I say "Al Sharpton once said that slavery was good, we just need to have the whites being the slaves instead. That's the correct order of things, and what god would want, the white men beneath our heel" how can he "prove" he didn't say it? You're asking to prove a negative and to my knowledge our court system does not require a negative to be proven.
Indeed, the fact that those that made the claim have chosen not to retract it despite being informed that its false and without being able to give any further evidence that it is true in and of itself proves it to at least be unverifiable.
What you're suggesting is the proof of a negative, and I do not know of such a standard in our court. Rush would have to make his case that he actually suffered an tangible negative effect DUE to the words (that's positive proof) but his "proof" that they were stating it is untrue is their inability to present proof that he actually stated it.
If the law worked as you said, which I'm almost positive it doesn't, slander/libel would almost never be able to happen because you can't prove that you did not say anything if the person making the claim doesn't give a reference or some kind of back up to when you said it.
None taken, but it is quite easy to use Google. But if you want a lawyer (Right's still in school), there are actual practicing lawyers on the board.
And the law does work exactly as I said, which is why there aren't alot of libel slander cases against public figures. There sure are some, however.
If the law didn't work exactly as I said, the freedom of speech would be infringed by the burden of needed to verify the veracity of everything you say before you say it. Even false statements are protected, unless the plaintiff proves that the person who said it, or wrote it, knew it was true or was grossly negligent with regard to the truth.
I wonder why Page Six is able to stay in business, btw? They are often grossly negligent with regard to truth ....