Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4786)	6/24/2003 8:01:54 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Janice, In regards to your example with Mr. Dobry, the traditional test for "malice" is twofold. Either Mr. Dobry must have known the truth, and wrote or published otherwise (falsely) (as plaintiff, you must be able to irrefutably prove he knew otherwise); or Mr. Dobry must have acted with reckless disregard for the truth (and again, you must be able to irrefutably prove that he had access to, or otherwise knew, that whatever the actual truth was). It's a very tough legal standard to meet, only rarely successful that I know of. Only my opinion though, and I'm not an attorney like Chris or Charles... KJC

To: Janice Shell who wrote (4786)	6/25/2003 1:06:13 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

My understanding is that what you print has to be false, for starters. Then the question is whether you knew it was false, or whether you recklessly disregarded the likelihood that it was false. But if what you print isn't false, it can't be defamatory. What did he say or print that you claim was defamatory? You said that what he said could lead people to certain conclusions. But that doesn't make it false. If I say that I saw you coming out of a known house of prostitution at 3:00 in the morning in a short skirt and with your lipstick disarrayed, even if you explain to me that you were an EMT and were called from your date in a disco to the aid call for a john and got your lipstick disarrayed giving mouth-to=mouth recusciation, my statement isn't false, and it isn't defamatory no matter how many times I print it even if people wrongly jump to the conclusion that you're a prostitute. And I'm not obligated to print your version of the facts.