Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Can someone explain?
Topic Started: Aug 21 2004, 01:46 AM (104 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
OK if a group has made a defamatory comment about John Kerry (a comment which "attacks the good reputation" of Mr Kerry) and he feels strongly about it why does he not sue them for either libel or slander (depending on whether it was written or spoken)?

In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it! So if someone makes a claim about John Kerrys military record they would have to prove it in court. It would then be for a judge and jury to decide a) if the allegation is false and b) whether it is damaging. If both then Mr Kerrys claim would be upheld. This is how it would work here, not sure if it differs in the US though. If not why does he not consider taking this action rather than trying to link the group to the Bush campaign?


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Maybe he will in due course.

Perhaps that is exactly what the pro-Bush crowd want - a distraction that is, since their own hero is not so pure or truthful and his military record - what there is of it is subject to considerable conjecture and dispute (and not forthcoming in detail).

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I guess one reason is that you have to prove libel and/or slander was being done. Kerry did nothing but a little election year grandstanding to fend off what has turned out to be quite damaging. He should have filed suit FIRST. After all, he had a team of lawyers working for him.

First he threatens televison and radio stations who air the ad. Then he wants to force the publisher of Unfit for Command to stop publishing. Now this.

Filing an FEC complaint has only made it worse. If he had ignored it like the media had, then the Swift Boat Vet ads would have faded off into obscurity.

This begs the question: What if the contents in the book or in the commercials are true?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Perhaps Kerry is reluctant to sue because the defendants could demand his records be released as evidence.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Also, American jurisprudence has interpreted the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to strongly protect "political speech" above most other forms of speech. This circumstance make slander and libel harder to attack in court. Not to mention the fact that suing over this issue will probably draw more attention to it.
| Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus