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.

Politics : The Supreme Court, All Right or All Wrong? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (124)	7/15/2005 3:38:54 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3029

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." But the standards of proof for defamation of a public figure are actually balanced the other way. If a public figure sues someone for defamation of character, they have to prove that the information was false, that the defendant knew the information was false or was recklessly indifferent to the truth, and that he was motivated by "actual malice", that is, by the desire to cause the defendant some kind of injury. Without knowing the actual facts of the case, the procedure for summary judgment is presenting affidavits to the judge that present your evidence in the best possible light, and the judge has to take them at face value. If your case gets dumped on summary judgment, either the judge made a mistake or you have a very weak case, too weak to waste time with a trial. Michael Moore could afford a better lawyer, of course, but facts are facts. The part that has me scratching my head is the finding that Nichols was a public figure for the purpose of those events. It makes sense but I hadn't seen that argument before. In general, he would not be a public figure, and the standards of proof for defamation for ordinary people are not as strict.