Can we have a serious discussion re libel: PT911

[CoffeeCat]

I would like to discuss the potential of libel suits, as a
result of "The Path to 9/11".

I am not a legal expert AT ALL. I hope those with knowledge
of the law will weigh in. However, I do have some knowledge
of libel law, because one of my law professors beat the elements
of libel into us daily.

I remember clearly--the elements that must be present for a libel suit.
It seems that if people are misrepresented in TPT911, they would have
all of the criteria for a libel suit.

1.) Publication--The libelous remarks must be PUBLISHED--in print,
broadcast or spoken to a second party. (CRITERIA MET)
2.) Identification-The person libeled must be CLEARLY identified
and recognized. (CRITERIA MET)
3.) Defamation--The person must be HARMED by the material published (loss
of money, loss of reputation, etc).
4.) Falsity--The material published must be FALSE.
5.) Fault---Public figures are required to prove that the publisher KNEW that
the material was FALSE and published anyway--with MALICE.

I see a clear-cut case for libel--if TP2911 depicts ANY person in a
fictitious, erroneous situation that makes them look bad.

Furthermore, Albright, Berger, Clinton and others have INFORMED ABC
IN WRITING, that parts of the movie are false. It appears that Albright
and others purposely created a paper trail to bolster their burden of
proof for proving fault (criteria #5). Albright and others put ABC
on notice that the information in the movie was false. Therefore--if ABC
choses to publish, Fault (or malice) can be easily established--because
of their letters (paper trail) to ABC.

I'm wondering if others have insight or opinions about the case for libel
with regard to TPT911. Again, I'm not an expert, but I think this would be
an interesting conversation with all of the experts and sharp minds we have
around here.

Anyone?

[Monkeyman]

1. What I have heard is Legal Action is in the Works

[CoffeeCat]

2. ABC lawyers have to know all of this...

...so why would they risk so much--to air this?

They must realllly like Junior.

Their credibility as a news organization will be destroyed. I don't get it.

It's like Mrs. Fields agreeing to put arsenic in her cookies--to help out
friends in the arsenic business.

[FormerDittoHead]

13. Maybe they're expecting to get a pardon?

I know, it would be only for criminal violations, blaw, blaw, blaw.

[LeftyMom]

3. They also broadcast it in the UK

and they have a much lower standard for libel, there the network would have to prove thier charges true rather than the aggrieved party having to establish that they are false as in the US. Suing in the US would be better PR, but suing in the UK would be a slam-dunk.

[Divernan]

5. And in civil cases in UK, loser pays 50% of winner's legal fees.

At least that was the percentage on one case I worked on MANY years ago.

[LostInAnomie]

4. From my very limited understanding...

... they would have a very hard time in this country because they are all public figures. ABC has put up just enough disclaimers to cover their ass.

Now in England they may have a better chance, unless they have the same laws regarding public figures. In England the burden of proof is on the defendant. They would have to prove that their claims are true with primary source documentation.

[EST]

6. Your points are well made and accurate.

I do have a quibble, to wit:

I assume that you are writing in order for people to read what you write.
The use of the number "2" to represent the word "to" or "too" is highly confusing and off-putting, making it difficult to dig through your obviously valuable prose.

Please give some thought to correcting this, as it would make a good product considerably better.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Thanks. Good point. Fixed. (nt)

[annabanana]

12. (UR showing yr age. . lol). . . . n/t

[Wilber_Stool]

8. The real problem with sueing in the US

is proving malice. It has to be proven that document was designed specificly to damage name of the person being libeled. With the directors links to far right fundy groups, it might be worth a shot.

[babylonsister]

10. How about slander or defamation of character? Would that apply? nt

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. After Times v. Sullivan

and cases that followed, the practical upshot is, despite meeting the elements you correctly laid out, one effectively can't sue for libel if one is a political public figure, even if there's a showing of actual malice.

Clinton hasn't a prayer, probably Albright too. Burger's got a small chance.

Folks like Carol Burnett have managed, but they're not political.

[karlrschneider]

11. I think a really good lawyer -could- demonstrate "actual malice"

defined as knowledge that the information was false OR * that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. It seems to me there has been a plethora of publicly available refutation that might meet the test.

* not sure how much the "logical OR", as it were, would obtain in a legal venue, though...

[karnac]

14. They already disclaim it, ergo fiction

is "fiction" slander?
ABC plans to prominently claim it is a docudrama, not a documentary at the beginning, during and after each airing. Like it did so in New Zealand.

Suppose I say " what i say next is not necessarily wholly true"

And I then say "You voted for * and your mother wears combat boots"

Did i just slander you?

No. I just told you a story about yourself that i warned already is not necessarily true.

That being said ABC sucks for doing this. Lots of suckers are going to buy it. disclaimer or not.