I think you'll find that your nation's legal structure allows people to sue for libel in such circumstances. While you may mot be litigious, America does have a bit of a reputation for have a lot of people who are.

Now we have (a kind of, not totally vague) answer to that question, heres's a simple follow up to move us along a little.

Given that he could be sued, do you agree that it was correct for the court to find against him and awrd damages? If not, I would be interested to know your reasoning.

danivon wrote:I think you'll find that your nation's legal structure allows people to sue for libel in such circumstances. While you may mot be litigious, America does have a bit of a reputation for have a lot of people who are.

Now we have (a kind of, not totally vague) answer to that question, heres's a simple follow up to move us along a little.

Given that he could be sued, do you agree that it was correct for the court to find against him and awrd damages? If not, I would be interested to know your reasoning.

If the person suing could show actual monetary loss (not just pain and suffering), I would award that amount as damages.

Ok... I think we should include some aspect of potential losses as well as perhaps a punitive amount to discourage him and others from future defamation, but basically you agree with the verdict against him and awarding of some damages, do I take it? At the very least the costs involved in clearing the plaintiff's name of such a slur.

So, we move on. Do you consider this to be unfair, and if so, on what basis?

danivon wrote:Ok... I think we should include some aspect of potential losses as well as perhaps a punitive amount to discourage him and others from future defamation, but basically you agree with the verdict against him and awarding of some damages, do I take it? At the very least the costs involved in clearing the plaintiff's name of such a slur.

So, we move on. Do you consider this to be unfair, and if so, on what basis?

I think you are extrapolating what I said into your desired opinion. (Surprising, coming from someone who desires direct and actual words, but I digress...)

Actual losses would be described as a loss of money, not a future defamation or cost of clearing a name. Perhaps Paula Deen can sue for defamation because she can articulate financial losses based upon the statements of those against her? [sidebar: It also does not include penalties as a discouragement to others.]

So, no. I do not agree. The person suing did have some actual monetary loss that can be articulated? I did not see any, but the case is in the UK, and you would have more information toward that.

It is a case of sticks and stones. If the person uses an opinion they have to hurt other's feelings, but not cause monetary loss... Well, I see that as petty and frivolous. But you did ask me for my opinion, not actual legal advice

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Ok... I think we should include some aspect of potential losses as well as perhaps a punitive amount to discourage him and others from future defamation, but basically you agree with the verdict against him and awarding of some damages, do I take it? At the very least the costs involved in clearing the plaintiff's name of such a slur.

So, we move on. Do you consider this to be unfair, and if so, on what basis?

I think you are extrapolating what I said into your desired opinion. (Surprising, coming from someone who desires direct and actual words, but I digress...)

Well, you seem to be deliberately fudging your responses, so I am partly trying to get you to commit. This is like pulling teeth.

Actual losses would be described as a loss of money, not a future defamation or cost of clearing a name. Perhaps Paula Deen can sue for defamation because she can articulate financial losses based upon the statements of those against her? [sidebar: It also does not include penalties as a discouragement to others.]

Well, first of all, Paula Deen is not someone I was aware of until you mentioned her name, and secondly she might have a bit of a problem because while the case of racial discrimination has been dropped (for the bizarre reason that a white person with black relatives cannot be a victim). Deen could perhaps enumerate the losses from the allegations, but in order to win a suit of defamation she would have to prove (and this is where UK and US law differ) that the allegations are false. This is subtly different from them not having been proven true (and her comments around the case would potentially weaken her case).

When someone sues for defamation, they are taking a risk that they lose - because if they do, not only do they fail to establish that the statements about them are not true, they often publicise them further. So I would argue that winning a case should also recognise that risk. In the UK, because the burden to prove the veracity lies with the defendant, this is even greater a risk - losing means that the statement has been shown to be true.

So, no. I do not agree. The person suing did have some actual monetary loss that can be articulated? I did not see any, but the case is in the UK, and you would have more information toward that.

Well they did have to hire lawyers, which is not usually free. But I would say that this was not a simple case of saying something nasty and untrue - it was saying something that is clearly damaging regardless of any documented financial loss.

It is a case of sticks and stones. If the person uses an opinion they have to hurt other's feelings, but not cause monetary loss... Well, I see that as petty and frivolous.

There are three levels of defamation (I am referring to US law here). The first, and most common is standard defamation, which you may call 'sticks and stones' if you like. The third, rarest and most serious is 'criminal libel' which exists in 17 states.

In between is the more obvious civil position of defamation per se. This applies in 46 US states and recognises that some situations are so harmful that damages do not have to be proven. These are (according to the Wikipedia article)

* Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
* Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
* Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
* Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[8][9]

I would say that the first and last of these would apply (saying that a teacher is a 'danger to children' is clearly injurious to their profession, and implying through that that they are a paedophile is clearly an imputation of moral turpitude).

This would mean that, in those 46 states (which includes your home State), once a statement has been found to be false and satisfies one of those four criteria, it does accrue damages automatically. I assume this is because such lies are clearly damaging and have potential for future damage

You may not like that, but given that even the nation of the First Amendment has it, I'm not sure that it's an egregious restriction of 'free speech'.

But you did ask me for my opinion, not actual legal advice

Well, frankly I would not be seeking legal advice from you. I'm moving (slowly because you seem to need the baby-steps) towards the allegation that DF seems to be making, based on the (factually incorrect) article in the possibly biased 'LifeSiteNews.com' article:

Do you think it was a situation where a Christian was being unfairly treated, violating their freedom of religion and/or speech?

If so, why?

[By the way, the plaintiff is herself a Christian, and her marriage ceremony took place in a church in South Africa. Whether you agree that she is a 'True' Christian or not, she is on record that she only values her marriage because it was entered into with a religious ceremony, and it seems to me that her support for gay marriage is also out of her own religious conviction.]

I never mentioned Christianity, so please do not try to use that as leverage for your position with me.

Quite honestly I could not care less about the law. You asked me for my opinion, and I gave it. You now want to use that to what end I do not know.

If a legal battle was ALWAYS loser pays the court costs of the winner, I would agree that this would be an acceptable damage cost. In your legal view, a plaintiff should be able to sue many people with little if any risk (especially if the case is handled pro bono). Sounds too much like a lottery to me. Just need to hit the right numbers, baby! C'mon... Daddy needs a new pair of shoes... (rolls dice)

People are responsible for the words they use. I fully agree that they are. However, I would hope you would agree that the societies that we both live in societies that are too litigious because people are too easily offended.

If a person is fired (by a lesbian boss) from their job (that they have stellar reviews in) for believing that same sex marriage is wrong, and NOT saying anything about same sex marriage to others in their job, does that person have a case?

bbauska wrote:I never mentioned Christianity, so please do not try to use that as leverage for your position with me.

No, but this whole thread was started by DF about religious (and primarily Christian) people the UK being 'restricted' in their speech and religious rights.

Quite honestly I could not care less about the law. You asked me for my opinion, and I gave it. You now want to use that to what end I do not know.

Because I am asking if you think the law is unfair in the context of this thread - whether it restricts free speech, or is unfair to the religious. That you would not sue yourself is fair enough. That you don't like the size of the damages is fine (I have presented the reasons why the law disagrees with you).

If a legal battle was ALWAYS loser pays the court costs of the winner, I would agree that this would be an acceptable damage cost. In your legal view, a plaintiff should be able to sue many people with little if any risk (especially if the case is handled pro bono). Sounds too much like a lottery to me. Just need to hit the right numbers, baby! C'mon... Daddy needs a new pair of shoes... (rolls dice)

Well, they'd need a good case each time, or they would be marked as a 'vexatious litigant' and barred from making it.

I also do not think they should have little risk. I'm pointing out that there is a risk, and that having taken it and won the case that should factor into the damages.

People are responsible for the words they use. I fully agree that they are. However, I would hope you would agree that the societies that we both live in societies that are too litigious because people are too easily offended.

Fair enough, but are you really saying that calling someone a 'danger to children', alongside equating homosexual activism with paedophilia, using a tag of #childabuse and also sends that marked for their boss to see is fair comment, and that the victim is just 'too easily offended'?

Not sure if you noticed, but accusations of paedophilia are quite serious, especially in recent times with growing awareness and increased detection and punishment.

If a person is fired (by a lesbian boss) from their job (that they have stellar reviews in) for believing that same sex marriage is wrong, and NOT saying anything about same sex marriage to others in their job, does that person have a case?

Potentially. It would partly depend on how they expressed themselves to their boss, and how the boss (and employing entity) handled the disciplinary action that ensued. Being good at your job is not necessarily going to be a defence against misconduct (although it may be mitigation when it comes to the outcome).

Given that you live in a country with much weaker employment laws than the UK, I would expect them to have a far weaker case in the USA than in the UK for wrongful dismissal. Mind you, I think anyone would be sensible about how they talk to their boss if they want to keep their job, would they not?

However, on your point about the easily offended, a senior religious figure in the UK does agree that sometimes people can be exaggerating mild discomfort as some kind of oppression:

Rowan Williams tells 'persecuted' western Christians to grow up

When DF started this thread, it was about the case of his good pal, a pastor who came over to the UK to shout at people in Wimbledon and was shocked to be approached by the police.

Today I saw the guy's name again, and it took me a while to remember where from, but when I saw he was a former cop, it clicked.

This weekend there was a massive earthquake in Nepal. At least 2,000 people died, and many buildings were damaged. And Tony Miano's response on twitter was:

[quote]Praying 4 the lost souls in Nepal. Praying not a single destroyed pagan temple will b rebuilt & the people will repent/receive Christ.[quote]

Nepal earthquake: US Pastor Tony Miano sparks outcry by suggesting Nepalis should not rebuild their 'pagan shrines'

Oddly, my local church is trying to raise funds to help Nepal, rather than "praying" that they convert and leave their temples as rubble. I suppose some would think them fools and apostates.