Actionable Libel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deanimator

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
12,945
Location
North Olmsted, Ohio
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has declared me (and millions more) a "domestic terrorist".

Do the victims have a case for a libel/defamation action against them?

Perhaps a 1983 civil rights suit?
 
The short answer is no.

You would have to prove actual damages. Also, there's the issue of governmental immunity. And if you get beyond that, you would have to prove "actual malice" since the NRA is a "public figure."
 
The short answer is no.

You would have to prove actual damages. Also, there's the issue of governmental immunity. And if you get beyond that, you would have to prove "actual malice" since the NRA is a "public figure."
I'm no more of a "public figure" than the Coventry students.

I'm an NRA member, so their resolution accuses me (totally without evidence) of engaging in a specific set of defined behaviors, NONE of which they have a snowball's chance in hell of proving that I engaged in.

My contention is that it was a willful and malicious act intended to harm the reputations and future employment prospects of members and to subject them to baseless law enforcement scrutiny and harassment.
 
If you don't like the answer, go find an attorney who will file and put your money down.

You pays your money and you takes your chances. You just don't has much chances in this case, but it sounds like you won't believe us, so I urge you to find that attorney.
 
I haven't looked into libel/slander law in a long time, but my gut says that AlexanderA has nailed it.
 
Well this is a hilarious suggestion, and good Lord it would be fun to argue and fun to watch but unfortunately you would be blocked at the first step as no court of jurisdiction will find that you have standing. As a lifer I feel slandered after listening to their claims but it is the "collective" that would have to argue and they won't. I would bet the liable laws have changed very little since you studied through Sullivan vs. Times ...the bar has been set so high in cases of liable that it's almost impossible. That's due to highly paid lobbiysts on K Street in Washington who plot and scheme and go to fat lunches planning ways to attack everything that is honest and worthwhile in this country, search for the LAWFARE group as a start, but better yet, there is a man who has become a "lay expert" in this matter who can do something about the liable laws, and that's a man who has suffered against false claims like nobody else in history. With one more turn of the court, the Supremes can be pressed (if not forced) to revisit and so I would suggest to anyone interested to write the White House and lend your support to revising American liable laws which absolutely the worse in any semi-free country. But nice thought really, might be worth filing just to see the headlines.
 
...easier and more effective to bring it up to the US gov't and your respective states elected representatives.

To that point and to clarify, it would actually be better if more cities in more states did same. Not every other city in every other state mind you, but, a few more.

''Hello (insert Rep or Senators name), your red flag / UBC proposal will effect me cause city # 2, 6, 14 has labelled me a terrorist for something as simple as being a bonafide member of a civil rights group....''

food for thought:cool:...
 
Well this is a hilarious suggestion, and good Lord it would be fun to argue and fun to watch but unfortunately you would be blocked at the first step as no court of jurisdiction will find that you have standing. As a lifer I feel slandered after listening to their claims but it is the "collective" that would have to argue and they won't. I would bet the liable laws have changed very little since you studied through Sullivan vs. Times ...the bar has been set so high in cases of liable that it's almost impossible. That's due to highly paid lobbiysts on K Street in Washington who plot and scheme and go to fat lunches planning ways to attack everything that is honest and worthwhile in this country, search for the LAWFARE group as a start, but better yet, there is a man who has become a "lay expert" in this matter who can do something about the liable laws, and that's a man who has suffered against false claims like nobody else in history. With one more turn of the court, the Supremes can be pressed (if not forced) to revisit and so I would suggest to anyone interested to write the White House and lend your support to revising American liable laws which absolutely the worse in any semi-free country. But nice thought really, might be worth filing just to see the headlines.
Like tracers, lawfare works both ways...
 
If you don't like the answer, go find an attorney who will file and put your money down.

You pays your money and you takes your chances. You just don't has much chances in this case, but it sounds like you won't believe us, so I urge you to find that attorney.

If you search, you will find an attorney who will say in effect, "I'm all ears. Talk as long as you like. This is my hourly fee." In the unlikely event you get to court you will lose. You're coming squarely against the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and even the most conservative judges will rule against you, probably especially the most conservative judges.

What you will accomplish is this: the insults and damages you've face to the point have been impersonal, a general class thing. If you make it to court, that'll change to the very deeply personal.

The solution to this kind of problem is political, not litigation. Being in San Fransisco, you already know your chances there.

Are those people even American? Maybe we should send anthropologists there to study them. God knows, they come up into the hills to study me--or used to--now they've gone soft, and just wait for us hill types to show up at the Walmart.
 
If you search, you will find an attorney who will say in effect, "I'm all ears. Talk as long as you like. This is my hourly fee." In the unlikely event you get to court you will lose. You're coming squarely against the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity and even the most conservative judges will rule against you, probably especially the most conservative judges.

What you will accomplish is this: the insults and damages you've face to the point have been impersonal, a general class thing. If you make it to court, that'll change to the very deeply personal.

The solution to this kind of problem is political, not litigation. Being in San Fransisco, you already know your chances there.

Are those people even American? Maybe we should send anthropologists there to study them. God knows, they come up into the hills to study me--or used to--now they've gone soft, and just wait for us hill types to show up at the Walmart.

Oh yeah ...what we really need is an anthropologist ...HeHeHe ...now that is friggin funny. I really like the concept of filing just to further expose their game, and not that it matters, any claim of government immunity could be beaten back with relative ease if we found a court to accept our case, which they won't. A close friend I went to school with is a staff lawyer at NRA, I send this post and he called back laughing. I wish they weren't having all these problems, real bad timing for a family war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top