--- Jeet Heer <jeet at sturdynet.com> wrote:
> Apparantly, he'll use a British court because it
> would be difficult to make his case in a US court,
> where he would have to prove a malicious intent to
> deceive.
Actually the standard is reckless indifference to the truth. It's called "constitutional malice," but "malice" is a term of art.
I always thought conservatives hated
> frivilous lawsuits...
>
Hey, it's not frivolous if you can win! Though just now, I am not sure that I'd be inclined to bet on a British judge, if I were Perle, even with the relaxed standard for British defamation suits.
jks
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/03/12&ID=Ar00200
>
> WASHINGTON - Richard Perle, the influential foreign
> policy hawk, is suing journalist Seymour Hersh over
> an article he wrote implying that Mr. Perle is using
> his position as a Pentagon adviser to benefit
> financially from a war to liberate Iraq.
>
> "I intend to launch legal action in the United
> Kingdom. I'm talking to Queen's Counsel right now,"
> Mr. Perle, who chairs the Pentagon's Defense Policy
> Board, a non-paying position, told The New York Sun
> last night.
>
> He said he is suing in Britain because it is
> easier to win such cases there, where the burden on
> plaintiffs is much less.
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com