Go Back > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 26 April 2018, 06:02 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,625

Oh OK. Thanks for straightening that out.
Reply With Quote
Old 26 April 2018, 06:23 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,268

From the article DawnStorm just cited:

“with ‘actual malice’–that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard”
That reads to me as if the "malice" part doesn't mean that they needed to have done so specifically in order to harm someone in particular, but only that they did so knowing or having good reason to suspect that it wasn't true.

Anybody here know whether that's the standard interpretation? -- and yes, I don't know whether the 'public official' standard would be taken by courts to apply to people who aren't public officials. I suppose the claim might be made that, by publicly protesting, they've made themselves public figures; though that wouldn't apply to everyone that's being accused of being actors rather than victims.
Reply With Quote
Old 26 April 2018, 06:59 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,523

Yes, that's the standard interpretation of 'actual malice'

From the site I linked:
the following activities likely do not in themselves [Seaboe's emphasis] constitute what has come to be known as New York Times actual malice:
· ill will or intent to harm;
· extreme deviation from professional standards;
· publication of a story to increase circulation;
· carelessness;
· failure to investigate facts;
· contact a subject for comment; or correct or retract false statements after publication;
· reliance on a single biased source; and
· inclusion of edited quotations that do not materially change the meaning of the speaker's words.
Note: actual malice isn't always required for a statement to be slander or libel, but I'm not going to get into that nest of snakes.

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advertisers ask YouTube to pull ads from Alex Jones' channels Psihala Business Bytes 10 07 March 2018 10:27 AM
Conservative radio host Alex Jones fighting to keep custody of children Psihala Amusement Bark 13 29 April 2017 01:54 AM
Bilderberg: Alex Jones disrupts BBC's Sunday Politics Andrew of Ware Soapbox Derby 5 15 June 2013 05:59 PM
Alex Jones: Conspiracy Inc. E. Q. Taft Business Bytes 4 06 May 2013 12:20 AM
Sandy Hook Elementary snopes Inboxer Rebellion 0 15 December 2012 07:12 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.