Started By
Message
re: This stupid Ole Miss / Rebel rags lawsuit
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:45 pm to AshLSU
Posted on 6/14/17 at 4:45 pm to AshLSU
quote:
Don't you also have to prove that it was done with malicious intent?
Publication of false statements (libel) requires proof of malice. In this case, the plaintiff has to prove A) intent to harm, B) actual harm, and (this one is the biggie) C) that all the statements were false.
The burden of proof is entirely on the plaintiff to prove defendant was false, not on the defendant to prove they are right. That's a tough standard to meet.
In a weird twist, look at all the publicity this law suit is getting for RR. They may actually see an uptick in revenue in the short term as a result of the "free" exposure and a result of the general Ole Miss public rallying behind them since RR is fighting back.
2
Posted on 6/14/17 at 11:37 pm to bamasgot13
re - actual malice you say is required. Maybe you are using Alabama law?
In Mississippi, "public figures have a harder time proving slander or libel because they’re required — by law — to meet the “actual malice” proof standard, whereas “private citizens” only must prove negligence on the part of the defendant."
And, if you want actual malice, did you see Leo's post the day Ole Miss was served with NOA#2. Priceless. Leo's attorney kicked Leo in the arse for that stunt.
In Mississippi, "public figures have a harder time proving slander or libel because they’re required — by law — to meet the “actual malice” proof standard, whereas “private citizens” only must prove negligence on the part of the defendant."
And, if you want actual malice, did you see Leo's post the day Ole Miss was served with NOA#2. Priceless. Leo's attorney kicked Leo in the arse for that stunt.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 12:55 am to bamasgot13
quote:
Publication of false statements (libel) requires proof of malice. In this case, the plaintiff has to prove A) intent to harm, B) actual harm, and (this one is the biggie) C) that all the statements were false.
So he's lost his case right from the start. Their is no way he can prove that the 3 guys had "intent to harm" him or his business directly. Did they have intent to harm Ole Miss? Absolutely, but there was no "intent to harm" this one individual who owns this business.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News