Jim Choate wrote:
> Note that at NO time should anyones actual speech be monitored, measured,
> or otherwise 'managed' by any 3rd party. It simply isn't needed.
Oh Bullshit.
If Fred has an odd sense of humor, and tells blind people the opposite of
what the traffic lights say, his actual speech needs to be managed.
If Timmy causes mass death by screaming "Anthrax Attack" in an underground
walkway during rush hour, resulting in a massive stampeding, crushing, and
trampling incident, his actual speech needs to be managed.
It is equally absurd to suggest that Timmy can mitigate his responsibility
by screaming "It's my OPINION that we're having an Anthrax Attack" in lieu
of actually stating there is one.
The key points here are that what is being alleged is false, and has a
large probability of causing people to react in a way which causes harm,
and that the speaker is either aware it is false, or negligent in that he
should have been aware it was false.
While not all defamatory speech about individuals meets all these
criteria, it is clear that some of it does, and being able to only sue the
individual tricked into reacting inappropriately, and not the original
speaker, would pretty much preclude the recovery of damages.
>> If Alice does this to John on a Website, and perhaps in concert with a
>> virtual community of Alices to others as well, and institutes a "child
>> safety program" to share her suspicions electronically with LEAs
>> worldwide, then I think John has a very good case that all things
>> belonging to Alice should be made things belonging to John, and Alice
>> should be enjoined from playing with her computer until she learns to
>> behave herself.
> If it's only 'suspicion' then it's protected speech.
Not if Alice shows reckless disregard for the truth, or simply doesn't
care.
To return to our earlier example, of Disney firing someone, because the
neighborhood Womyn's Political Theatre Movement smears them as a child sex
predator, for speaking critically of their censorship campaign.
You would argue that the irate Womyn are immune from suit, and the guy
should sue Disney for firing him.
But Disney is an innocent party in all of this, and is under no obligation
whatsoever to suffer soiling of its brand name, angry pickets outside its
offices, and crank phone calls and bomb threats and "Mickey and Donald are
Pedos" graffiti on its building exterior, for continuing to employ a
person falsely smeared as a sexual predator.
These things are real to Disney, even if the allegations which caused them
aren't.
So in this case, I think the defamatory speech is pretty close to the
"Anthrax Attack" example, cited in the prior paragraph, and damages should
be able to be recovered.
--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
