![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Welcome to Cockytalk! Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!! If you have any problems registering or logging in, please contact our Admins. Thanks! |
|
Today's Top 10 | |||
Posters (by posts) | Threads (by views) | Newest Posts | ![]() ![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#61 |
All Everything
Male Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 6,544
CockyCash: 1825498 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() True. Wasn't Connor Shaw and Bruce Ellington in NYC as well? Connor was probably back in the hotel doing push ups. Bruce probably found a pick up game of basketball.....
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 |
Bowl MVP
Male Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,179
CockyCash: 5500 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() From what I have heard, Kelcy wasn't there. Chaz evidently was. There is a statement from the police that Chaz was attacked outside the club. Vic, on the other hand, can't seem to get his act together. His agent knew what he was dealing with and should have locked him down.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 | |
Blue Chip
Male Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: aiken
Posts: 954
CockyCash: 500 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press". If a suit was filed the defense by TMZ would be based on the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Let me make it clear for you. Defamation suits happen all the time. The number one defense is Freedom of the press to present the news, the loophole is the UNNAMED SOURCE. Maybe you should go online and read it before making crazy comments. Even better read the 1964 case with the Court’s decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 | |
シカゴのカキ
Male Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,817
CockyCash: 19837857 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Your citation to Sullivan completely misses the mark. The Sullivan court was asked to address one simple question: "We are required in this case to determine for the first time the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct." And the Court held: "We hold that the rule of law applied by the Alabama courts is constitutionally deficient for failure to provide the safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press that are required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct." The entire policy basis underpinning Brennan's majority opinion was that it was necessary to protect the press from governmental restriction on free speech in the interest of an ability to have an open and critical dialogue about our government and its officials, even where those opinions may be unpopular and even where they may occassionally be erroneous: "Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." And this is precisely the reason why I stated that your citation to the Constitution was inappropriate. Yes, the First Amendment affords the freedom of the press. It is well-established, though, that this does not extend to permitting the press to make untrue statements. Either the statement in the TMZ article is true (in which case it is simply not defamation) or it is untrue. The First Amendment only pertains to the governmental interference with speech, and has nothing to do with conduct by private parties. So even if the TMZ statement is untrue and there might be grounds for a libel suit, the First Amendment would have nothing to do with it. (Sullivan does also stand for the proposition that where it is a public figure claiming defamation, then "actual malice" becomes a part of the requisite elements to prevail and the claim. So to the extent a public figure is seeking to claim defamation, my earlier point about not needing "actual malice" is mistaken. Again, though, I do not think Kelcy and Vic qualify as public figures thought they might be seen as limited public figures.) Maybe now YOU ought to go read a few more cases, like Braden v. News World Communications, Inc., where the court held in a private libel action against the press that the reliance on a single, biased source did not constitute a reckless disregard for the truth (which is the standard under the elements for a claim short of that limited "actual malice" exception for public figures). Apart from the bias element, which would make that fact pattern more egregious than this one, the question here is pretty similar - would TMZ's reliance on a single unnamed source subject TMZ to liability for libel? Apparently not, because the claim would fail to establish the second element of the claim regarding reckless disregard (and of course I've already stated that I believe the claim would fail under the first element - that the statement be untrue). Last edited by GarnetInChicago; 04-16-2014 at 07:56 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
Master Debater
Male Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Columbia
Posts: 730
CockyCash: 500 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Boom! Lawyered?
__________________
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson Are you ready for the revolution? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 |
Any Major Dude
Male Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Charleston
Posts: 609
CockyCash: 530 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() I hate to get in the middle of this legal argument, but to the extent GiC is suggesting that Sullivan, Gertz, and their progeny don't place constitutional limitations on the scope of defamation law, that is just wrong (to be clear, I'm responding o his 4th paragraph). That is precisely what those opinions do. Before those cases, the First Amendment didn't protect untrue statements. After those cases, it did. That is, the First Amendment precludes liability for untrue statements made in relation to public figures (and perhaps even non-public figures involved in matters of public concern) if the publisher did not know the statements were false or had a reckless disregard for their truth.
To be fair, GiC seems to acknowledge this standard but doesn't concede the implication that the constitution thereby protects some untrue (otherwise defamatory) statements. That's all I wanted to make clear. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
Game MVP
Male Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,803
CockyCash: 1000000 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() My head hurts. F$&@ reading!!!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 |
1st Team All-SEC
Male Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sumter
Posts: 4,168
CockyCash: 1000000 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Wow! A hijack pissing contest. The thread wasn't going anywhere on topic anyway, i guess.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |
シカゴのカキ
Male Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,817
CockyCash: 19837857 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
I'm saying though, that is only pertinent where you're dealing with public figures. The point I was trying to make in this whole exchange is that those limitations have nothing to do with the type of libel claim that Kelcy and Vic might try to pursue. (I also originally had written 2 more paragraphs to my prior post that went on a bit more about the qualified privilege for anonymous sources, but I was just tired of making the argument. In there I had included a quote pertaining to the fact that ever erroneous statements could be protected in statements by the press involving public figures due to the important interest in protecting the free dialogue and critique of our government. If it was not clear in my last message, I do agree with that notion. Again, though, that is only relevant where you are dealing with defamation cases brought by public figures. Based on your first paragraph, it does not really seem that we are disagreeing.) Last edited by GarnetInChicago; 04-16-2014 at 11:42 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 |
Heisman Candidate
Male Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: south carolina
Posts: 15,698
CockyCash: 63940 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() /\ nobody cares.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 |
シカゴのカキ
Male Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,817
CockyCash: 19837857 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 |
Blue Chip
Male Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Manassas
Posts: 604
CockyCash: 2000 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() I'm I the only guy enjoying this debate, I should have focused on law.
Back on topic: According to the espn article that was posted earlier in the thread all parties are innocent and they simply witness another group of people beating a man. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
1st Team All-SEC
Male Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tryon, NC
Posts: 4,749
CockyCash: 1700 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() No, you're not the only one. Some people just want to complain when they cannot understand an issue by saying disrespectful comments like, "nobody cares." Those were some interesting, well-written posts on the first amendment and law on defamation. If you don't care about the law, fine. A lot of people find it a fascinating subject.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 | |
Heisman Candidate
Male Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: south carolina
Posts: 15,698
CockyCash: 63940 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 |
1st Team All-SEC
Male Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,838
CockyCash: 94820 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#76 |
BIGGER. STRONGER.LONGER
Male Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Club Fields
Posts: 7,287
CockyCash: 200 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#77 |
Banned
Male Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Chapin
Posts: 3,562
CockyCash: 500 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() So people think this didn't happen? Or Vic's arrest.
Would it be shocking if it didn't? I'm confused with some peoples views. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#78 |
Yes we can!!!
Male Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Goose Creek
Posts: 3,166
CockyCash: 179999999908811015 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Up north folks just aren't as friendly. I walked all throughout Times Square and not one person I passed said hi. When I'd say "hi" most looked at me like I wanted something. Maybe it's because there are more of them and there just isn't time. Sounds like Chaz is okay physically. Keeping my fingers crossed that neither he nor Victor are in any trouble. And for the scoreboard, I loved the First Amendment discussion.
__________________
We are Carolina!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#79 |
Blue Chip
Male Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: aiken
Posts: 954
CockyCash: 500 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() GARNET IN CHICAGO
FOR THE RECORD THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MERITS OF A CASE AND THE DEFENSE OF THE CASE. MY POINT WAS TO THE DEFENSE BY TMZ BEING BASED IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE REASON COURTS IN CIVIL ACTIONS HAVE TWO PARTIES PRESENT THERE VIEW OF THE LAW IS BECAUSE OF THERE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW VS THE FACTS. HERE IS THE FINAL FACT, MY STATEMENT OF UNEDUCATED WAS STRICKLY ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. I DON'T KNOW YOU OR HOW WELL YOU ARE EDUCATED. I SEE NOW YOU MENTION THE 1ST AMENDMENT, I'm GLAD YOU SEE THE CONTEXT OF A CIVIL DEFENSE. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#80 |
Master Debater
Male Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Columbia
Posts: 730
CockyCash: 500 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Order! Order! Order! Jury, please strike all comments from both counsels. I will hold both of you in contempt.
Thank you Colorado Tech University! Because of you, I knew 12 of the words these law dawgs used.
__________________
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson Are you ready for the revolution? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|