>
>I have no particular knowledge of the issues discussed below, but the
>points raised should probably be considered by anyone thinking of
>further spreading the post concerning CNN & the pictures of celebrating
>Palestinians. Perhaps Justin could comment.
In the US. libel law is state law. Still, in most jurisdictions defamation requires you to prove the statement was false, defamatory, and caused you damages. However, if the defamatory statement concerns a public figure or private person involved in a matter of public concern, the 1st amend. is implicated, and you have to prove that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with "reckless disregard" as to whether it was false. My guess is that the latter standard might well be satisfied if someone were publish a false and defamatory statement with the admission that he didn't know whether it was true and hadn't bothered to try to find out. However, the defamed person would have to prove some sort of damages, typically; they are not generally presumed outside of all small class of cases. Still, it is a serious pain to have to defend a lawsuit. A lawyer would advise a list owner or a publisher to make some reasonable effort to find out whether a statement is true before publishing it. --jks
>
>
>The problem with "publishing" the post that Portside sent out is that
>the
>charge is, on its face, defamatory, and could subject those who sent it
>out
>to a claim for libel. Given the current state of U.S. libel law, not
>just
>CNN as such, but *any* person identified with CNN *might* have enough
>grounds to at least get into court.
>
>The usual exemptions from liability in repeating such a claim, that it
>is a
>report on an official proceeding of some kind, would not be applicable
>in
>this case. Unfortunately, the Portside moderator's choice of subject
>line:
>"CNN: Manipulating Images?" only makes matters worse, for it would make
>it
>easier for a plaintiff to prove "actual malice." Proving "actual malice"
>requires the person suing for libel to show that the people who made *or
>repeated* the statements did so either a) knowing them to be false or b)
>in
>reckless disregard of whether or not they were true. The question mark
>headline in effect says, we have no clue whether or not this is true,
>but we
>are going to republish these defamatory statements anyways.
>
>I believe a claim that this is commentary or opinion is not credible in
>this
>case. Someone can argue as much as they like that in putting out such
>images
>CNN is lying because it misrepresents the real situation and sentiments
>among the Palestinians, or that all the CNN coverage is in effect a lie
>because it doesn't show how the U.S. has carried out many such crimes in
>the
>past and so on. Those are matters of opinion and interpretation,
>commentary. Not so an assertion or charge that CNN falsely presented
>video
>from ten years ago as depicting a reaction to current events. That is,
>at
>least in my opinion, a factual matter.
>
>People should especially note: attributing a libelous statement to a
>third
>party does not absolve the person repeating it from liability AT ALL
>under
>U.S. libel laws, and the fact that the person repeating it doesn't vouch
>for
>its accuracy may only compound the legal problems. Even asking a
>*question,*
>not making a factual assertion, can expose someone to liability, for
>example, asking in a published article or TV broadcast whether so-and-so
>is
>a murderer or wife beater or rapist without some strong factual
>foundation
>for the question itself is libelous. And it might be just as libelous if
>the
>question is attributed by the writer/speaker to someone else.
>
>José
>
>
>
>
>
>=======
>PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp