All TV and speaker manufacturers need to be included in this lawsuit.
After all, the defamation could not have occured if it wasn't for its ability to be displayed on a TV and heard through its speaker.
Physicists could also be implicated since they're responsible for discovering and defining the dark matter and dark energy that the images and sounds travel through to get to the rods and cones, and tympanic membranes.
Long live the US and A.
Heck, sue the dark matter and dark energy too, oh, wait, they don't have a $15 billion bank account to tape.
I really don't think a conviction necessarily proves anything either way. There can be false convictions just as well as someone being falsely let go too.
The public isn't necessarily held to the same standards that the justice system is held.
But news organizations are, and should be. So are all media, if it's an official statement.
I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug
No, it doesn't work that way. Civil court is very different from criminal court. the standard of proof is far lower. You also can't try criminal cases there. This was a different kind of trial. It's hard to explain, but someone can lose a civil case for having responsibility for something without having lost the criminal case. That doesn't mean that all criminal trials come out with the correct conclusion. I've been on plenty of juries over the years, and I've never been on one that didn't try to do the right thing. But, then, we never had anyone famous.
I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug
Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.
QUOTE: "Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have MATERNALLY and substantially harmed the reputation of my clients personally and in the business area in which they operate," wrote Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr, attorney for the two Houston men.
How do you sue ignorant attorneys for murdering the English language?
I feel harmed, maternally and substantially, by Mr. Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr's poor grasp of language skills. - Obviously a graduate of the Houston School System.
I hear 2 muggers are being sued by someone in NYC for stealing their Zunes on the subway, then throwing them back at them for not being an iPod, and knocking them unconcious with those bricks!
yep: first they throw a bubble gum wrapper in your yard, and the next thing you know, they're coming for your women. If they're not murders now, they''re gonna be, so let's treat 'em like that. Hell, kill 'em now, before they can kill the first time. Yeah! That's the ticket. We should get back to what made this country great...and that DID include condoning libeling people, didn't it, and condemning those who have been accused of a crime, but acquitted or not convicted? Oh, how I long for the good old days when Jefferson and Madison and their righteous gang stood up for those causes, and made this country great.
I suppose most people don't know that Sir Thomas Paine with Jefferson and Madison made it possible for authors in the United States of America [coined by Paine] to own copyrights for their works and to help protect them from being imprisoned if they wrote articles against the government.
This country was founded in enlightenment views and today it resembles the Precambrian period with the way the laws are arresting any scapegoat they can to get ratings and more.
Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.
C
You're right that a civil ruling says he was responsible. In fact, civil suits deal with responsibility to the plaintiff, and a ruling is determined by a preponderance of the evidence (which you might think of as a pretty solid likelihood that the defendant is responsible). Crimes are injustices against society, which is one reason why the burden of proof is the much higher "reasonable doubt" standard.
Wrongful death is also a much broader term than murder both in the possible scope of interaction and in motive, but if I recall correctly, the spin the plaintiffs put in the civil trial was more or less the same, so from that perspective, the civil ruling implies that he killed them himself.
I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug
You are indeed mistaken. A civil court cannot "convict". It is also incorrect, incidentally, to say that Microsoft was "convicted" of some sort of abuse of their monopoly. You can say that OJ was judged to have been responsible for their deaths in a civil court.
I think it's pretty bad that two guys who haven't been convicted of anything are labeled as "murderers". I think I'd sue, too, if someone did that to me. But... sue Apple? I don't get that part. Why not sue every single cable and television affiliate as well?
Whether or not they're likely to win, though, depends on whether they're "public figures" from my limited understanding of law. If these are two private citizens, they're almost certain to win this one because all they have to prove is that the facts portrayed are materially incorrect and caused damage. If these are some sort of celebrities they're likely to lose, because they'd have to prove the network knowingly included false information that was intended to cause harm.
QUOTE: "Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have MATERNALLY and substantially harmed the reputation of my clients personally and in the business area in which they operate," wrote Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr, attorney for the two Houston men.
How do you sue ignorant attorneys for murdering the English language?
I feel harmed, maternally and substantially, by Mr. Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr's poor grasp of language skills. - Obviously a graduate of the Houston School System.
Most likely, whichever writer typed that down in transcribing it, or more likely, someone here on the site, made that mistake. I'm sure you realize that.
To those of you who are actually confused/upset/whatever about Apple's being named as part of this suit..
Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.
Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.
To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.
To those of you who are actually confused/upset/whatever about Apple's being named as part of this suit..
Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.
Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.
To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.
Most likely, whichever writer typed that down in transcribing it, or more likely, someone here on the site, made that mistake. I'm sure you realize that.
Yeah, after all, Command C, Command V are pretty difficult keystrokes to get correct.
Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.
Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.
To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.
True; except that no contract can compell unlawful action.
Prediction: Apple will pull the unedited episode and ask to be dismissed as a party to the case; Viacom will settle for undiscosed $ and correct the episode, which Apple will redistribute. $2 gets you whatever version Apple has up now . . .
If these are some sort of celebrities they're likely to lose, because they'd have to prove the network knowingly included false information that was intended to cause harm.
I'm not a lawyer.
Well, if they can prove that they asked Viacom to not air the episode before it aired I think that'll probably get them past the Actual Malice test that public figures have to pass to win a defamation case.
Well, if they can prove that they asked Viacom to not air the episode before it aired I think that'll probably get them past the Actual Malice test that public figures have to pass to win a defamation case.
Maybe. But Viacom may not have shown them the show before it aired, so they may not have known what was going to happen.
I'd like to know how many of you who don't support the plaintiffs have been wrongfully accused of murder or are known in your community for being a murderer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhill
What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals. Notice that the articles mentions that the two have never been convicted of any felonies, let alone murder. It didn't mention misdemeanors, arrests for felonies, associations with felons. I'm sure that the two mentioned are model citizens.
How ignorant. I'm sure many men here have been arrested for assault (fighting). You probably don't realize how common those arrests are. Just stand outside a night club on any given day. So if you have been arrested for assault that means you are the scum and evil of society? You can get arrested for assault by simply spitting on someone. And the 3 strikes you're out law has accomplished nothing. It has actually made more hardened criminals. Do you know how many people have been put away for many many years because they've been convicted for what would be considered misdemeanors in other places? They made that law to make the disparity between rich and poor wider. The same reason why Uncle Sam's own gang, the CIA and police, convert specific areas into ghettos by introducing alcohol and drugs into poor areas creating slums then buying up land on the cheap then using the same CIA and police to clean the hoods up then make the hood all nice, clean and habitable then selling the land at a profit. Uncle Sam has been doing this for decades.
America's largest corporations which are owned by friends of the Federal Reserve (a private corporation, not part of the government), have always been, especially during Clinton/Bush admin, trying to divide America by culture, race and religion. Why do you think Kennedy was assassinated? They do this via all forms of media with Hollywood and broadcast news being the biggest joke and disgrace.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent because philosophically it's all related.
I basically just meant to say that your assumptions are the result of how media brainwashes you into thinking we are inherently individual and separate beings. We are all one and need to start realizing that.
Comments
All TV and speaker manufacturers need to be included in this lawsuit.
After all, the defamation could not have occured if it wasn't for its ability to be displayed on a TV and heard through its speaker.
Physicists could also be implicated since they're responsible for discovering and defining the dark matter and dark energy that the images and sounds travel through to get to the rods and cones, and tympanic membranes.
Long live the US and A.
Heck, sue the dark matter and dark energy too, oh, wait, they don't have a $15 billion bank account to tape.
I really don't think a conviction necessarily proves anything either way. There can be false convictions just as well as someone being falsely let go too.
The public isn't necessarily held to the same standards that the justice system is held.
But news organizations are, and should be. So are all media, if it's an official statement.
I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug
No, it doesn't work that way. Civil court is very different from criminal court. the standard of proof is far lower. You also can't try criminal cases there. This was a different kind of trial. It's hard to explain, but someone can lose a civil case for having responsibility for something without having lost the criminal case. That doesn't mean that all criminal trials come out with the correct conclusion. I've been on plenty of juries over the years, and I've never been on one that didn't try to do the right thing. But, then, we never had anyone famous.
I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug
Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.
C
How do you sue ignorant attorneys for murdering the English language?
I feel harmed, maternally and substantially, by Mr. Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr's poor grasp of language skills. - Obviously a graduate of the Houston School System.
yep: first they throw a bubble gum wrapper in your yard, and the next thing you know, they're coming for your women. If they're not murders now, they''re gonna be, so let's treat 'em like that. Hell, kill 'em now, before they can kill the first time. Yeah! That's the ticket. We should get back to what made this country great...and that DID include condoning libeling people, didn't it, and condemning those who have been accused of a crime, but acquitted or not convicted? Oh, how I long for the good old days when Jefferson and Madison and their righteous gang stood up for those causes, and made this country great.
I suppose most people don't know that Sir Thomas Paine with Jefferson and Madison made it possible for authors in the United States of America [coined by Paine] to own copyrights for their works and to help protect them from being imprisoned if they wrote articles against the government.
This country was founded in enlightenment views and today it resembles the Precambrian period with the way the laws are arresting any scapegoat they can to get ratings and more.
Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.
C
You're right that a civil ruling says he was responsible. In fact, civil suits deal with responsibility to the plaintiff, and a ruling is determined by a preponderance of the evidence (which you might think of as a pretty solid likelihood that the defendant is responsible). Crimes are injustices against society, which is one reason why the burden of proof is the much higher "reasonable doubt" standard.
Wrongful death is also a much broader term than murder both in the possible scope of interaction and in motive, but if I recall correctly, the spin the plaintiffs put in the civil trial was more or less the same, so from that perspective, the civil ruling implies that he killed them himself.
I could be mistaken, but OJ was convicted in civil court, so maybe he at least may be portrayed as a murderer. shrug
You are indeed mistaken. A civil court cannot "convict". It is also incorrect, incidentally, to say that Microsoft was "convicted" of some sort of abuse of their monopoly. You can say that OJ was judged to have been responsible for their deaths in a civil court.
I think it's pretty bad that two guys who haven't been convicted of anything are labeled as "murderers". I think I'd sue, too, if someone did that to me. But... sue Apple? I don't get that part. Why not sue every single cable and television affiliate as well?
Whether or not they're likely to win, though, depends on whether they're "public figures" from my limited understanding of law. If these are two private citizens, they're almost certain to win this one because all they have to prove is that the facts portrayed are materially incorrect and caused damage. If these are some sort of celebrities they're likely to lose, because they'd have to prove the network knowingly included false information that was intended to cause harm.
I'm not a lawyer.
QUOTE: "Such patently false, inflammatory and defamatory publications have MATERNALLY
How do you sue ignorant attorneys for murdering the English language?
I feel harmed, maternally and substantially, by Mr. Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr's poor grasp of language skills. - Obviously a graduate of the Houston School System.
Most likely, whichever writer typed that down in transcribing it, or more likely, someone here on the site, made that mistake. I'm sure you realize that.
Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.
Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.
To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.
To those of you who are actually confused/upset/whatever about Apple's being named as part of this suit..
Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.
Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.
To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.
The man (I assume) speaks the truth!
Most likely, whichever writer typed that down in transcribing it, or more likely, someone here on the site, made that mistake. I'm sure you realize that.
Yeah, after all, Command C, Command V are pretty difficult keystrokes to get correct.
Yeah, after all, Command C, Command V are pretty difficult keystrokes to get correct.
Well, considering it's spelling...
Viacom is directly liable for the program, and thus any and all monetary damages would be paid by them.
Apple, via iTunes, is serving as a distribution medium. This, in concert with the attempts to get Viacom, vis-a-vis BET, to cease any further airings of the episode, Apple was named to force them to cease selling the episode. I would assume the plaintiff's laywers asked Apple to do so, but Apple can't because of their contract agreement with Viacom to distribute the show unless Viacom says not to, which Viacom has yet to do.
To make it easier for you to understand.. they are not trying to get $$ from Apple. They're simply trying to force them to stop selling the episode.
True; except that no contract can compell unlawful action.
Prediction: Apple will pull the unedited episode and ask to be dismissed as a party to the case; Viacom will settle for undiscosed $ and correct the episode, which Apple will redistribute. $2 gets you whatever version Apple has up now . . .
If these are some sort of celebrities they're likely to lose, because they'd have to prove the network knowingly included false information that was intended to cause harm.
I'm not a lawyer.
Well, if they can prove that they asked Viacom to not air the episode before it aired I think that'll probably get them past the Actual Malice test that public figures have to pass to win a defamation case.
Well, if they can prove that they asked Viacom to not air the episode before it aired I think that'll probably get them past the Actual Malice test that public figures have to pass to win a defamation case.
Maybe. But Viacom may not have shown them the show before it aired, so they may not have known what was going to happen.
It doesn't really matter.
What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals. Notice that the articles mentions that the two have never been convicted of any felonies, let alone murder. It didn't mention misdemeanors, arrests for felonies, associations with felons. I'm sure that the two mentioned are model citizens.
How ignorant. I'm sure many men here have been arrested for assault (fighting). You probably don't realize how common those arrests are. Just stand outside a night club on any given day. So if you have been arrested for assault that means you are the scum and evil of society? You can get arrested for assault by simply spitting on someone. And the 3 strikes you're out law has accomplished nothing. It has actually made more hardened criminals. Do you know how many people have been put away for many many years because they've been convicted for what would be considered misdemeanors in other places? They made that law to make the disparity between rich and poor wider. The same reason why Uncle Sam's own gang, the CIA and police, convert specific areas into ghettos by introducing alcohol and drugs into poor areas creating slums then buying up land on the cheap then using the same CIA and police to clean the hoods up then make the hood all nice, clean and habitable then selling the land at a profit. Uncle Sam has been doing this for decades.
America's largest corporations which are owned by friends of the Federal Reserve (a private corporation, not part of the government), have always been, especially during Clinton/Bush admin, trying to divide America by culture, race and religion. Why do you think Kennedy was assassinated? They do this via all forms of media with Hollywood and broadcast news being the biggest joke and disgrace.
Sorry, I went off on a tangent because philosophically it's all related.
I basically just meant to say that your assumptions are the result of how media brainwashes you into thinking we are inherently individual and separate beings. We are all one and need to start realizing that.