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 : Legal proceedings via SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (60)	12/13/1998 5:05:00 PM
From: Andrew Martin	Respond to of 242

Clinton hasn't issued stock on himself -not yet at least. -If he ever does I'm sure the ticker would be 'PERJ'. I believe the suits have something to do with tangible loss of real assets resulting from the (alleged) defamation. If Clinton is removed from office, thereby losing salary, it would be as the result of a constitutional political proceeding not public criticism, defamation, etc. Irregardless, "The Clown Must (still) Go Down".

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (60)	12/13/1998 7:31:00 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Respond to of 242

Cheeky, First of all, public figures (such as the President) have a different standing in the eyes of the US judicial system than do ordinary citizens. Secondly, I could be derogatory and call anyone a butthead, and the courts are likely to treat my words as an opinion, and I'd not be liable for slander or libel. I could even get away with saying the President was a sexual pervert, and I'd still not have committed libel because the facts surrounding his personal situation might lead a reasonable person to believe that "sexual pervert" was an apt and fitting description for his actions. However, if I were to post that you (using your real name of course) were a sexual pervert and a child-molester, and you were to sue me, then the courts would likely want me (in my defense) to come up with some evidence to support my statement. Even though you post publicly on the boards (using an alias), to date the courts have not determined that merely posting messages on a board or in a chat room makes you a public figure. And even if you were a public figure, I'd still have to have something to back up my claims. KJC

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (60)	12/13/1998 11:23:00 PM
From: Estimated Prophet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 242

The prez is a public figure, and under New York Times v. Sullivan, the standard for judging comments about a public figure is one of "actual malice." This is a tougher standard for a defamed public figure to prove than is required of a non-public figure. Thus Wm. Jefferson C. would have an almost impossible hurdle to overcome in any libel suit against his detractors. This post is intended as an adjunct to the already correct post made by Kerry J. Carmichael. The fact that no internet bulletin board poster has been deemed a public figure is significant due to the heightened standard under NY Times v. Sullivan.

To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (60)	12/14/1998 5:06:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 242

RE: Can't Clinton sue his defamers? Of course. Damned near anyone can sue damned near anyone for damned near anything. In Clinton's case, given his net worth, he could probably sue as a pauper and not even pay a filing fee. He could represent himself, or his wife could do the paperwork. The defendants will have to hire an attorney, file an answer, make an appearance, and pay for a defense. If he proves reckless disregard of the truth, or actual malice (ill will (such as being a Republican or Liberal Democrat), or knowing disregard of truth or falsity), he will clean up, especially if he sues in Washington, D.C. where the locals love him. I hope he is stockpiling tapes of Jay Leno and other rich people who are boring the public to tears with their slanders. These possibilities give the couple something useful to do in their forthcoming retirement. I hope the comedians' defense lawyers are urging their clowns on to more and more outrageous slanders. I look forward to years of thoroughly enjoyable court cases and reruns, especially if he is impeached and convicted and removed (will jack up the damages.) He only needs to win one case. He ought to win thousands, starting with the Republican Congressmen who have been so stupid as to speak outside of the House chamber.