Slanders and slanderers
And from AcbyTesla'; "With all due respect, I think it would be close to impossible to win a libel suit against either Vogt or Nadeau and definitely not Dershowitz. Fox News, Murdoch's right wing outlet in the US actually argued in court that it was their right to lie knowing it was a lie on their news show and this was guaranteed by the First Amendment. (AND THEY WON THE CASE!!!) It is truly a very fine line.
Go watch the movie "Absence of Malice" with Paul Newman and Sally Field. Great movie and the title comes from the ruling in New York Times v Sullivan. This case pretty much gave the media a blank check to publish whatever it wants. You can win a libel or defamation suit in the US...but the bar is placed very high. It's virtually the opposite of Italy. I'm not sure how it is in the UK.
Dershowitz is no different than you or I, whether we like it or not. He is "expressing" his opinion....which is 100 % protected even if it is wrong. Vogt and Nadeau are very different. They are publishing the facts of the case. If they knowingly published lies (that would be with malice) they would be committing libel. But the media is able to kind of hide from this in a multitude of ways.
If you sue someone for libel, you have to prove the malice, that they were outrageously wrong and that the lie damaged your reputation.
Otherwise you are out of luck."
Whilst I am no lawyer, I do wonder if at the end of the day there may be a big libel case in England. A lot of posters have posted on 'English' sites. Whilst there may be a defence of fair comment when reporting the court cases, many of the comments of some of the more prolific posters go far beyond what was ever said in court. In particular those who claim Knox is a psychopath and / or who claim Knox was a drug addict (some specify a cocaine addict), neither of which were part of the court case. I think a judge might take the view that the more 'professional' posters had little excuse for not getting it right, and such comments are clearly defamatory. Whilst English defamation damages are not enforceable in the US, for European based posters they may be in trouble, and the US based posters will need to ensure no assets are within reach of UK courts and they don't transit through Heathrow or they may lose their luggage (OK I know that happens whether you have an outstanding debt or not).
Yes, I'm not so certain that a case can't be made in US court, though I respect the citations to US court cases. And court portrayals in movies are best avoided for any sense of how it actually goes in court. Movies are done in 2 hours, real court cases can last decades.
It seems to me there is a palpable malice to the reporting, and it is done in the context of a trial that has real world impact on the defendants. Is there any greater possession or loss they could suffer than personal liberty?
The law tries to capture what is right and wrong in every country. Types of cases, burdens of proof, jury versus judge trials, may vary from jurisdictions. In the UK, I believe you have to actually prove that what you've said is true, ignorance is not a defense; and the loser traditionally pays attorney's fees which can be huge.
As for Dershowitz, he's not merely expressing an opinion like you or I; he holds himself out as an expert, a Harvard law professor, and his 'opinion' on TV isn't like yours or mine at all. When he cites false evidence, if it's not deliberate or it is, either way it undermines his credibility. Having Dershowitz stand up in court and say he's within his rights to be an ignorant blowhard, blood sucking vulture craving TV time to malign innocent people for his own benefit, deprives him of legitimacy, and that's worth more than money. He takes the hit to his reputation, as well he should. And it's harder for him to argue he doesn't know he's wrong because he's such a 'know-it-all', his stock and trade; it makes him defend what he's said, when what he's said is indefensible. "Wouldn't want her dating my son?"; "She's probably guilty?". Is that really opinion? Sounds like a gratuitous insult, sounds maliciously motivated, an intent to cause injury. People like this need to be confronted, IMO.
