| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2005 06:06:54 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
WOW, Now O.J and Robert Blake have a new golf partner! |
Funny, I said that in an email not 5 minutes ago (minus the golf analogy). |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 06:12:56 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Just ask John DeLorean. |
He was not a celebrity and he was not rich when he got busted trying to deal cocaine cuz he was bankrupt... |
How do you define famous, or celebrity? John D was the toast of the automotive industry in US and In UK, he made the rounds of the late night shows repeatedly. As for being rich, his company went bankrupt but he had enough personal wealth to hire top notch legal assistance to secure his acquittal, and to repel the government's attempt to claim his money as ill-gotten gains under RICO statutes. Although he started from humble beginnings, he was rich before his rise and fall, and I'll bet he left a hefty estate when he died this past March..
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 06:21:24 PM · #78 |
| Isn't much of what is said in this thread now illegal? Couldn't he sue? I think SC should keep a close eye on this. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 06:24:07 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Isn't much of what is said in this thread now illegal? Couldn't he sue? I think SC should keep a close eye on this. |
C'mon it's ridiculous. People are free to express their opinions... |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 06:29:57 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Isn't much of what is said in this thread now illegal? Couldn't he sue? I think SC should keep a close eye on this. |
The problem with libel is that in order for a suit to be successful you need to prove the person making the statement knew it to be false. If the person thinks that MJ is a child molester and says such it isn't libel.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 06:32:49 PM · #81 |
easy, bobster. there is nothing illegal with people expressing their views.
PS: Moving it to rant.
Message edited by author 2005-06-13 18:33:52.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 06:53:35 PM · #82 |
Okay, no problem... I'm no lawyer!
I had no idea that to be libelous, you have to be aware you are making a false statement. Say Jackson is innocent (I'm not so sure), it would be tough with so many people blatantly saying he's guilty. I'm sure nobody is allowed to outright state that they think he's guilty on TV, why would Internet forums be different? |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:01:33 PM · #83 |
See this link:
Slander and Libel
Read especially the paragraph that begins "In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation,..." in the section entitled "United States law".
Perhaps this will answer some questions regarding libel.
Sara
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:09:34 PM · #84 |
Another link:
//www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article10750.html
Generally, a statement has to be provable as true or false before it can be libelous. Opinions are out of the running for libel, so youâre free to describe a bad actor as âa loserâ or the local mayor as âclueless.â Opinions are protected under the opinion privilege, but that has its own limitations. If the opinion is supported by inaccurate facts, it may not be protected. What the opinion privilege doesnât protect is accusations of criminal or illegal behavior, even if theyâre expressed as opinions. So, if you write that your state attorney is a âthief and a felon,â youâre asking for trouble.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:27:36 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Mummi:
This is a shame... he´s guilty as hell.. |
Like you'd know.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:40:11 PM · #86 |
I just find it a shame that the mob mentality can flourish in something like this.
NONE of us were there, heard all the testimony, etc. enough to make a sound judgement.
Q: What is the purpose of a jury?
A: To determine who has the best lawyer.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:16:47 PM · #87 |
I was there, I am actually Juror #9--
Thats why I broke the story before Reutors did-- me 3:40 (Reutors 4:14--EST)
So any questions regarding the case, you can send me a big Ol' Check, and Ill answer em..
And I want BearMusic to edit my book Im gonna write too! |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:26:03 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
I was there, I am actually Juror #9--
|
Hmmmmmmm...with all the money you just made for all the "not guilty" votes...you should be able to buy a real nice camera now! |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:30:06 PM · #89 |
I was hesistant in posting this next comment, just bare in mind, I'm repeating what I heard, these are not my thoughts--
But for those of you who think racism isnt still prevalent in our society you are solely mistaken..
Shortly after I heard the verdict was gonna be announced (within the next hour), I had to run to our local little store, for some paper towels.. (Dont ask)..
I asked the cashier if she heard the Jackson Verdict was gonna be announced soon, (they have a tv in the little store they can watch)..
She said she had heard that.
I asked if she thought he was gonna be found guilty or innocent?
She said, oh he will be found innocent, All them "Spooks" with money always get off, just like OJ..
Do not reply to me like I made that remark, I am just repeating what was said to me, but it is proof that the mindset of America is still more Racist then alot of want to believe.. |
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:34:40 PM · #90 |
Well at least he can go back to having boys in his bed in relative peace; as he said "it's the most loving thing you can do'...All the middle aged men in my street are planning to follow suit.
Message edited by author 2005-06-13 20:35:12. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:01:51 AM · #91 |
| the jury should of been america, they could of had phone lines, kind of like how you vote on american idol |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 05:26:58 AM · #92 |
This popped immediately into my mind:
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit peeved over all this hoopla around Jackson.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 06:08:00 AM · #93 |
I love the Caring Continuum! Agree entirely.
In respect of the libel issue, calling MJ a child molester would be potentially libellous, if he is not a child molester. However, I think that MJ would have great reluctance in suing anyone for libel for the reasons below.
The standard of proof in criminal trials (beyond reasonable doubt) is a tough one to meet. The State failed to make a case that was beyond reasonable doubt (as confirmed by the jurors in the interviews). As aside, in my opinion, this is not conclusive authority for MJ's innnocence: it is authority for the statement that the evidence is not sufficient for him to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
If MJ wanted to sue in libel, the facts would be re-examined at the lower threshold applying to civil cases (the balance of probabilities ie more than 50%). This is where OJ fell down: I believe that he lost the private suit for damages brought by the family, as the probability of his having committed the act in question was greater than 50%, though not beyond reasonable doubt.
MJ is not going to want another trial, let alone one that would potentially condemn his already shaky reputation on a decision that there was a 51% likelihood that he is a child molester.
In terms of commenting here regardless, I think that he is unlikely to sue DPC messageboards, as the sum total of damage done to him by the few hundred people reading a post here is likely to be very small. The costs would outweigh the damages to be recovered. The most that would realistically happen would be a letter to the site asking for the comments to be removed. Even this is unlikely.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 12:44:08 PM EDT.
