Mr. Strauss,
<<Now Barron's will have to prove the facts in their Libelous article... I don't think they'll be able to do it...>>
The rest of your post sounds reasonable, but this assertion is absolutely ludicrous.
The reality is that Barron's does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof, in a case like this, rests heavily on the plaintiff. In other words, Osicom must prove, with a preponderance of evidence, all of the following elements:
1. The article in question contains false information about Osicom.
2. As a direct consequence of the false information, Osicom suffers provable actual injury/damage.
3. The journalist(s) of the article authors the false information with ACTUAL MALICE. Actual malice, in a case like this, means that the writer publishes the information with the clear foreknowledge that they were false.
In libel cases against a public figure or a public company, the court does not penalize the press for honest mistakes or mere carelessness -- a concept that most of the laymen don't, and probably never will, understand. |
