In the interest of fair play, we run the Mike South comments that were also posted on the Luke Ford site. Evidently South has honed his sharpened legal skills with large doses of Matlock reruns
A libel or slander claim can be proven by showing the following: \n1. Publication,
No doubt Luke published said information. Publishing on the internet is publishing
3 that is defamatory
Per The American heritage Dictionary:
de·fame
(dí-fäm´) -tr. v.-famed., -fam·ing., -fames. \n1. To attack the good name of by slander or libel. \n2. ARCHAIC. To disgrace. \n[ME defamen < OFr. defamer < Lat. diffamare : dis-, apart + fama, reputation.] \nde·fam´er n.\n Some of what Luke has published does indeed disgrace AVN and/or Gene Ross. But can it be said to "attack the good name of" AVN?
Gene Ross: "You ask this with a straight face?"
4. that is substantially false
Meaning that it is mostly false. Remember that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. How does one prove the falsehood of statements Luke has made on his site as having come from "a source". All Luke has to do is produce parts of email, phone tapes or whatever and anything he posts as a rumor can be said to be substantially true. ie it is true that an anonymous source said blah blah.
Gene Ross: In the immortal word of Clarence "Darrow" Coznofsky, truth is the best defense against libel. Let's see who's going to spring forth to testify when it has to be done under oath.
5. that is published with fault,
Meaning that it is published with error. The plaintiff in such actions bears the burden of proof. Can AVN prove that these are errors? Providing that they can only part of battle is won.
Gene Ross: Can it be proved that these are not errors, grasshopper?
a. if about a matter of public concern, it is likely that since both parties are public entities, this would indeed be a matter of public concern.
b. private plaintiff = negligence
Neither party is private but in the event that Gene and AVN were deemed private, could Gene/AVN prove negligence? Possibly so since after being corrected Luke did not remove the offending statements, but the law says that the plaintiff must have offered reasonable proof that the statements were false. What proof has been offered?
c. public plaintiff = actual malice
More likely, Gene/AVN are public plaintiffs. Actual malice means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to cause actual harm. Luke could certainly have motive, but motive alone is not enough. Luke must have actually wanted to damage AVN.
Gene Ross: And you make this statement with a straight face
6. and that caused damages.
Damages would be the harm done to the plaintiffs "good name".
In other words Luke must have posted false information, must have known it was false and must have posted it with the intent of doing harm to the plaintiff. Now, who do you think will prevail?
Gene Ross: I repeat the comment about the straight face
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Gene Ross: Will somebody get a real lawyer in the courtroom? Freedom of speech does not allow for the dispensation of muck. Maybe you should talk to the National Enquirer's lawyers about some of their settlements.
