• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No wrongdoing for ACORN in Cal.

Ziggurat said:
Your example simply isn't equivalent to what actually happened. Nobody had their words spliced in the manner you suggest. What appears on the tape actually happened. It may not be the full story, but you will find a notable LACK of any examples of the sort you suggest.

And frankly, you've got no evidence that O'Keefe didn't think that ACORN was doing what it seemed to be doing. Much of the evidence presented in ACORN's defense consists of actions that O'Keefe would not have been privy to.



It's not libel either. Which is why, despite all their bluster, ACORN hasn't and won't file a lawsuit on those grounds. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any such suit. It's also why ACORN actually fired so many of their workers. Seriously, if those workers were all so innocent, their real grievance is against ACORN management, not O'Keefe. He had no power to fire anyone.
Click to expand...

Misrepresentation through omission is still misrepresentation.

There's no getting around that. Whether ACORN, which no longer exists, could file or win a suit is a separate matter.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not libel either. Which is why, despite all their bluster, ACORN hasn't and won't file a lawsuit on those grounds. They don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any such suit. It's also why ACORN actually fired so many of their workers. Seriously, if those workers were all so innocent, their real grievance is against ACORN management, not O'Keefe. He had no power to fire anyone.
Click to expand...

I love how this fact is played against ACORN as acknowledgment that they knew they were in the legal wrong, as opposed to public opinion, but it isn't evidence that ACORN didn't approve of the actions of the workers.
 
Cavemonster said:
Misrepresentation through omission is still misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

That's nice. It's still not enough to win you a slander suit.

There's no getting around that.
Click to expand...

O'Keefe doesn't have to. And if you think that ACORN or Maddow aren't omitting anything, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Whether ACORN, which no longer exists, could file or win a suit is a separate matter.
Click to expand...

No, it is not a separate matter. It is THE matter which I addressed in my original post, and have focused on since.
 
tyr_13 said:
I love how this fact is played against ACORN as acknowledgment that they knew they were in the legal wrong, as opposed to public opinion, but it isn't evidence that ACORN didn't approve of the actions of the workers.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming ACORN management fired workers who did nothing wrong? Wow, you must really think they are craven.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's nice. It's still not enough to win you a slander suit.
.
Click to expand...

Which one of these criteria was not met?
A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court:

First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement.

Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff.

Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message.

Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.
Click to expand...
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander
 
Ziggurat said:
Are you claiming ACORN management fired workers who did nothing wrong? Wow, you must really think they are craven.
Click to expand...

They were facing a PR nightmare. They reacted quickly and poorly.

Zig, I've seen you cling to some crazy partisan ideas just because they reinforced your particular partisan beliefs, but this is a blatant appeal appeal to consequences and oversimplification on your part. Your getting right up there with BAC and Cicero.
 
Ziggurat said:
The first one.
Click to expand...

A defamatory statement was not made?
A defamatory statement is defined as "a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.
Click to expand...

Was it not a communication?
Did it not harm ACORN in the estimation of the community?
Did it not deter third parties from dealing with ACORN (government funding cut off)

What part of this definition was not met?
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, not so much. If they had a slander suit, they would have filed a slander suit. They didn't, because they don't. What happened in those tapes actually happened. You can argue all you want to about the significance of those tapes, you can argue all you want to about what was not shown, you can argue all you want to about all the good ACORN does, you can argue all you want to about how unfair it was to do a sting on low-level workers. But none of that matters: the tapes are real.
Click to expand...

So O'Keefe did nothing wrong?
 
Cavemonster said:
A defamatory statement was not made?
A defamatory statement is defined as "a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are clearly not working with the right definition. If a child molester moves in next door to me, and I tell my other neighbors that this person is a child molester, my communication has met your definition of defamation.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are clearly not working with the right definition. If a child molester moves in next door to me, and I tell my other neighbors that this person is a child molester, my communication has met your definition of defamation.
Click to expand...

Yes. That communication would meet the legal definition of defamation.

Now. Do you know why you would not be liable for making that communication?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That's rather in the eye of the beholder. He did not libel or slander ACORN.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to lie if you do it for "conservative" reasons that fit's one's ideology?
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
Yes. That communication would meet the legal definition of defamation.

Now. Do you know why you would not be liable for making that communication?
Click to expand...

You tell me. I met every criteria that Cavemonster listed for both defamation and slander. So either I would be liable, or Cavemonster is missing something. Sort it out with him which it is.
 
Ziggurat said:
You tell me. I met every criteria that Cavemonster listed for both defamation and slander. So either I would be liable, or Cavemonster is missing something. Sort it out with him which it is.
Click to expand...


Indeed you did.

You would have made a defamatory statement but you wouldn't have been liable.

What a mystery, eh Zig?
 
Upchurch said:
They were facing a PR nightmare. They reacted quickly and poorly.
Click to expand...

That's usually what happens to people or organizations when they get caught with their proverbial pants down. There's a limit to how good one's reaction to the "PR nightmare" can be when your employees are caught on tape aiding and abetting child prostitution, as well as illegal immigration. But if anybody is to blame for the "PR nightmare", it's the ACORN employees.
 
jakesteele said:
Then I place the industries of politics, advertising, marketing and sales under Citizen's Arrest and confine them to their quarters until the ink dries on the indictments.


Here's a small sample of that mealy mouth Michael Moore's style of journalism.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
Click to expand...

One can be lying but not be liable.

One person doing something wrong doesn't mean that another person isn't doing something wrong.

The mystery deepens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom