In The Event That You Were A Juror With This Situation...

[bedwyr]

Offered the restricted information, can you help freedom of speech to the stage of defaming the smoothness of yet another? Do you consider this is one more step on the slippery-slope? Does viewpoint grow to be responsible when?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/libel_online

[Arlando]

effectively chanllenged as unconstitutional, then I assistance prosecution under that statute.  If there is a valid freedom of speech argument, then it requirements to be argued up the appeals chain after the conviction.  It is not my job as a juror to debate the merits of a freedom of speech claim it's my job to determine if the alleged perpetrator meets the circumstances for a conviction under the wording of the statute.

[DeborahLeng]

In other words, "freedom of speech" ends where an additional person's being starts. You might not say somethign that causes loss for yet another: funds, reputation, time. That social services could have investigated the particular person is your clue: as a homeschooler, I study HSLDA.ORG's weekly newsletter, and it often has stories of the unhappy relative siccing social services on the homeschooling family members. It really is nasty for each, and it is criminal. In this case, the sexual innuendo could lead to such a harm to the person's reputation that she could be fired. She wisely jumped on it the ideal defense is a very good offense.

[Hud]

I assistance supporting the law. If there is a statute on the books that limits slanderous speech, that has not been effectively chanllenged as unconstitutional, then I support prosecution under that statute.  If there is a valid freedom of speech argument, then it needs to be argued up the appeals chain after the conviction.  It is not my job as a juror to debate the merits of a freedom of speech claim it is my job to figure out if the alleged perpetrator meets the conditions for a conviction under the wording of the statute.   Schelli's Suggestions Constitutional Law: Principles And Policies(Introduction to Law Series) Amazon List Value: $59.00 Utilized from: $40.00 Average Consumer Rating: four.5 out of 5(based on 44 critiques) Constitutional Law(Casebook)(Casebook) Amazon List Value: $142.00 Employed from: $27.97 Typical Consumer Rating: two. out of 5(primarily based on 15 critiques) Constitutional Law: Essay and Numerous-option Questions and Answers(Siegel's) Amazon List Cost: $27.95 Utilised from: $13.00 Average Customer Rating: 5. out of five(based on 1 critiques) Constitutional Law, 2004(Crunchtime) Amazon List Cost: $22.95 Utilized from: $16.51 Average Consumer Rating: 5. out of 5(primarily based on 4 evaluations) Schelli 61 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please confirm your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please confirm your account to send a message.

[jarah]

?-Cat-?? said: 1 I don't have enough information about the law to respond to this with a solid opinion. But what I understand is that a fact it not libelous. The truth is not libelous. So - given that, then I would suppose that opinion IS - or can be - considered libelous, if it when expressed it does damage to another. The charge is criminal libel - but the judge could throw the case out. right? 61 months ago

[Julius]

I don't have enough information about the law to respond to this with a solid opinion. But what I understand is that a fact it not libelous. The truth is not libelous. So - given that, then I would suppose that opinion IS - or can be - considered libelous, if it when expressed it does damage to another. The charge is criminal libel - but the judge could throw the case out. right?

[Broin]

There was a time that saying bad things about people was both grounds for a civil suit and for criminal penalties. It is still the law in other English speaking jurisdictions, but rarely used.   Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps[7] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state. In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912. In Canada, though the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state(police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation   American law took a turn away from our English heritage in the case of John Peter Zenger, before the American Revolution.    John Peter Zenger(October 26, 1697 ? July 28, 1746) was a German-born American printer, publisher, editor and journalist in New York City. He criticized William Cosby, Governor of New York, and the governor had him arrested and jailed. Zenger claimed in his apology that even though he was in jail without supplies, he could still publish paper through a hole in the door with the help of his wife and servants. It is unclear just how seriously Zenger personally took the material published in the Weekly Journal. It was almost certainly financed by one of the opposition factions in New York politics, possibly by James Alexander, who along with William Smith was disbarred for objecting to the two-man court that Cosby hand-picked. Zenger was most likely a convenient target to use in an attempt to end criticism. His defense attorney, Andrew Hamilton, was from Philadelphia, and won a case most local attorneys were confident would be unwinnable, and over which prior attorneys had been disbarred. His success may have resulted in the addition of the expression "Philadelphia lawyer" to the language.[1] A notable aspect of the case is that Hamilton challenged the legality of the crimes for which his client was being prosecuted. It was one of the first times in American history in which a lawyer challenged the laws rather than the innocence of his clients. The jurors were stunned and didn?t know how to, or even if they were allowed to, address whether the law itself was "legal." At the end of the trial on August 5, 1735, the twelve New York jurors returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the charge of publishing "seditious libels," despite the Governor?s hand-picked judges presiding. Hamilton had successfully argued that Zenger?s articles were not libelous because they were based on fact. Zenger published a verbatim account of the trial as A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger(1736). "No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves" stated Zenger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenger,_Trial_of_John_Peter     The Zenger case is quite relevant to the case under discussion because the Internet makes everyone with a computer and access to the Internet a "publisher" as Zenger was in his time. Nowadays, everyone who posts on-line has the ability to do with modern technology what in times passed was restricted to people with the ability to print a publication.    After Zenger, the trend in American law was to treat defamatory speech and writings as a civil matter, rather than a political one. Beside the fact that it is part of our legal culture to treat defamation civilly, there are policy considerations behind it. If in fact what the man alleged was true, the lawyer, who is licensed by the state, was probably guilty of a professional impropriety, which needs to be looked into by the bar authorities. Criminalizing public airings of complaints will lead to fewer complaints, which will allow wrongdoers to get away with things that they should not be doing. For instance, in Texas if you report your employer for violating the law, you can?t be sued. And, you can?t be fired by your employer.   My guess is that the case will never make it to trial. The prosecutor will not want to fool with the matter, because if the law is challenged, the case will go way up the food chain, to the US Supreme Court to be challenged on constitutional grounds. Law enforcement does not like to get involved in non-violent, civil disputes that can be better addressed in civil courts.   Since our system, truth is a recognized defense to defamation actions and the statute in question fails to recognize that fact, the law places an undue burden on utterances that may be true and will undoubtedly be striken.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation   To answer your question, if I was on the jury, I would have great difficulty convicting someone for making the remarks that the potential defendant allegedly made. Possibly depriving someone of his liberty for making angry statements on line is overkill.  Just as the Zenger jury was unable to convict, I would have grave difficulties convicting for the same reasons.   I think that the prosecutors would be smart enough to recognize that the case is a dog and drop it.

[Biadhaiche]

Freedom of speech ends when it begins to hurt others...it has never been an unlimited right like most people think......   It his lies damaged his ex., they have every right to prosecute him...    

[Garwood]

I doubt that a jury is going to ever see this case. If it see a jury, look for a quick acquittal. There was a time that saying bad things about people was both grounds for a civil suit and for criminal penalties. It is still the law in other English speaking jurisdictions, but rarely used.   Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps[7] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state. In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912. In Canada, though the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state(police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation   American law took a turn away from our English heritage in the case of John Peter Zenger, before the American Revolution.    John Peter Zenger(October 26, 1697 ? July 28, 1746) was a German-born American printer, publisher, editor and journalist in New York City. He criticized William Cosby, Governor of New York, and the governor had him arrested and jailed. Zenger claimed in his apology that even though he was in jail without supplies, he could still publish paper through a hole in the door with the help of his wife and servants. It is unclear just how seriously Zenger personally took the material published in the Weekly Journal. It was almost certainly financed by one of the opposition factions in New York politics, possibly by James Alexander, who along with William Smith was disbarred for objecting to the two-man court that Cosby hand-picked. Zenger was most likely a convenient target to use in an attempt to end criticism. His defense attorney, Andrew Hamilton, was from Philadelphia, and won a case most local attorneys were confident would be unwinnable, and over which prior attorneys had been disbarred. His success may have resulted in the addition of the expression "Philadelphia lawyer" to the language.[1] A notable aspect of the case is that Hamilton challenged the legality of the crimes for which his client was being prosecuted. It was one of the first times in American history in which a lawyer challenged the laws rather than the innocence of his clients. The jurors were stunned and didn?t know how to, or even if they were allowed to, address whether the law itself was "legal." At the end of the trial on August 5, 1735, the twelve New York jurors returned a verdict of "not guilty" on the charge of publishing "seditious libels," despite the Governor?s hand-picked judges presiding. Hamilton had successfully argued that Zenger?s articles were not libelous because they were based on fact. Zenger published a verbatim account of the trial as A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger(1736). "No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves" stated Zenger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenger,_Trial_of_John_Peter     The Zenger case is quite relevant to the case under discussion because the Internet makes everyone with a computer and access to the Internet a "publisher" as Zenger was in his time. Nowadays, everyone who posts on-line has the ability to do with modern technology what in times passed was restricted to people with the ability to print a publication.    After Zenger, the trend in American law was to treat defamatory speech and writings as a civil matter, rather than a political one. Beside the fact that it is part of our legal culture to treat defamation civilly, there are policy considerations behind it. If in fact what the man alleged was true, the lawyer, who is licensed by the state, was probably guilty of a professional impropriety, which needs to be looked into by the bar authorities. Criminalizing public airings of complaints will lead to fewer complaints, which will allow wrongdoers to get away with things that they should not be doing. For instance, in Texas if you report your employer for violating the law, you can?t be sued. And, you can?t be fired by your employer.   My guess is that the case will never make it to trial. The prosecutor will not want to fool with the matter, because if the law is challenged, the case will go way up the food chain, to the US Supreme Court to be challenged on constitutional grounds. Law enforcement does not like to get involved in non-violent, civil disputes that can be better addressed in civil courts.   Since our system, truth is a recognized defense to defamation actions and the statute in question fails to recognize that fact, the law places an undue burden on utterances that may be true and will undoubtedly be striken.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation   To answer your question, if I was on the jury, I would have great difficulty convicting someone for making the remarks that the potential defendant allegedly made. Possibly depriving someone of his liberty for making angry statements on line is overkill.  Just as the Zenger jury was unable to convict, I would have grave difficulties convicting for the same reasons.   I think that the prosecutors would be smart enough to recognize that the case is a dog and drop it. Sources: above   Snow_Leopard's Recommendations The Printer's Trial: The Case of John Peter Zenger and the Fight for a Free Press Amazon List Price: $18.95 Used from: $5.99 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5(based on 2 reviews) John Peter Zenger: Free Press Advocate(Colonial Leaders) Amazon List Price: $11.95 Used from: $39.52 Snow_Leopard 61 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[collyer]

You may not cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In other words, "freedom of speech" ends where another person's being begins. You may not say somethign that causes loss for another: money, reputation, time. That social services could have investigated the person is your clue: as a homeschooler, I read HSLDA.ORG's weekly newsletter, and it regularly has stories of the unhappy relative siccing social services on the homeschooling family. It's nasty for both, and it is criminal. In this case, the sexual innuendo could cause such a damage to the person's reputation that she could be fired. She wisely jumped on it; the best defense is a good offense. danielpauldavis 61 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.