On this racism stuff--I think Charles must have heard the rumor that Bush plans on asking Collin Powell to be his running mate. I heard it too. ;o)
Tom
JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 00-03-15 18:18:16 EST, you write:
>
> << So by LM's own
> testimony, this case was not about press coverage but about the truth of
> whether Muslim prisoners were imprisoned.
>
> And on that core truth, the jury ruled against LM.
> >>
>
> Right, but in the US, since the matter is one of public interest, this
> falsehood, which also had to be found to be damaging, would not be actionable
> unless LM was reckless,a high standard to meet. The upshot is that LM may be
> put out of business. Now I don't care for its views in the main, from what I
> have seen of them as posted here by JIm H., but I think that is a bad thing.
> It would shut down yet another more or less independent and perhaps cranky
> but anyway nonstandard perspective, incidentally transferring money to the
> press barons. Our constitutional law of libel makes this much harder to
> happen, and that is better.
>
> Btw, the jury also believed that LM had done, what, half a million pounds of
> reputation damage to the plaintiff--absurd. No one in England cares what LM
> thinks. I would be surprised if the report, if false, did five pounds of
> reputational damage to the plaintiff. That makes me doubt that the jury
> decided the factual part of the verdict on the merits. I wouldnm't be
> surprised if they got it right--I think LM has been apologizing for
> atrocities by the rump Yugo state (which are not, to give Lm its due, as bada
> s NATO, Blair, and Clinton made out, But can you really give much credit to a
> jury verdict that gives those kinds of damages in a case like this?
>
> --jks