Edwards admits to affair - Page 7

DosEquis · 08-14-2008, 02:42 PM

This debate reminds me of the court case Larry Flynt went through with Falwell and the article in Hustler suggesting that Jerry had sex with his mom in an out house. Falwell sued him for libel and the case was dismissed, as given the publisher and content nobody would reasonably believe that Jerry did indeed bone his mom in the shit house.

The enquirer to me, is the same. The enquirer was intended for entertainment... the "hot sheets" from Men in Black if you will. I think this reason is why you see a lack of law suits against the magazine. Nobody really ever takes the publication seriously, unless Agent K busts jeebs selling a series 4 deatomizer or the Arquillian's lose a galaxy.

They generally report controversy and do not get taken seriously. With that, those they publish stories about count on the thing being disregarded by the public if it is true or untrue. In the end nobody reasonably believes the enquirer...or at least nobody used to. No lawsuit justified at that point. They are expensive and draw even more attention to the situation, true or untrue.

WickedLou9 · 08-14-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

This debate reminds me of the court case Larry Flynt went through with Falwell and the article in Hustler suggesting that Jerry had sex with his mom in an out house. Falwell sued him for libel and the case was dismissed, as given the publisher and content nobody would reasonably believe that Jerry did indeed bone his mom in the shit house.

The enquirer to me, is the same. The enquirer was intended for entertainment... the "hot sheets" from Men in Black if you will. I think this reason is why you see a lack of law suits against the magazine. Nobody really ever takes the publication seriously, unless Agent K busts jeebs selling a series 4 deatomizer or the Arquillian's lose a galaxy.

They generally report controversy and do not get taken seriously. With that, those they publish stories about count on the thing being disregarded by the public if it is true or untrue. In the end nobody reasonably believes the enquirer...or at least nobody used to. No lawsuit justified at that point. They are expensive and draw even more attention to the situation, true or untrue.

It's also incredibly hard for a public figure to win a libel lawsuit against a news publication. When it's a public figure the laws actually change. It's almost impossible so most people don't bother. When the target of the libel is a "public figure", they have to prove "actual malice" in order to win the case. That means you would have to prove that the paper knew that the story was false and published it will full knowledge that it was false. Chances are you won't be able to proove that.

7960 · 08-14-2008, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's also incredibly hard for a public figure to win a libel lawsuit against a news publication. When it's a public figure the laws actually change. It's almost impossible so most people don't bother. When the target of the libel is a "public figure", they have to prove "actual malice" in order to win the case. That means you would have to prove that the paper knew that the story was false and published it will full knowledge that it was false. Chances are you won't be able to proove that.

or it's true and you wan tto run around bitching about how they're slandering you without having to get on a stand and present any evidence......and also have to face the evidence they have for the claims they made.

WickedLou9 · 08-14-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

or it's true and you wan tto run around bitching about how they're slandering you without having to get on a stand and present any evidence......and also have to face the evidence they have for the claims they made.

If it's true they would be better served to ignore it than to bring more attention to it by filing a lawsuit. It's not cheap to sue the NE. They have plenty of money and lawyers. We are also talking first ammendment here. It's hard to punish someone for free speech. The courts don't make it easy to win cases that would prohibit someones speech. If a Celebrity brings a suit against the NE, chances are the suit is valid, and chances are it will be settled out of court.

lew · 08-14-2008, 04:55 PM

The best is this section from the article that Lou linked from the Hudson suing the UK magazine:

Hudson wins retraction, damages in National Enquirer libel suit

"Earlier this week, the Enquirer printed an apology to pop princess Britney Spears over an article that claimed her marriage was on the rocks."

7960 · 08-14-2008, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by lew

The best is this section from the article that Lou linked from the Hudson suing the UK magazine:

Hudson wins retraction, damages in National Enquirer libel suit

"Earlier this week, the Enquirer printed an apology to pop princess Britney Spears over an article that claimed her marriage was on the rocks."

LIBEL! LIBEL!!!

oh wait, is it libel if it's true?

7960 · 08-14-2008, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If it's true they would be better served to ignore it than to bring more attention to it by filing a lawsuit. It's not cheap to sue the NE. They have plenty of money and lawyers. We are also talking first ammendment here. It's hard to punish someone for free speech. The courts don't make it easy to win cases that would prohibit someones speech. If a Celebrity brings a suit against the NE, chances are the suit is valid, and chances are it will be settled out of court.

and if the NE prints a story the chances are it's true, and chances are if it's settled out of court it's a business decision to go the cheapest route.