I don't know if it's true, but Law and Order once ran a trailer paragraph after
one of its episodes saying that the Supreme Court found that proof of innocence
is not grounds for
releasing a falsely imprisoned person. I wonder if they would have run that on
national TV if it weren't true. They might have gotten sued for slander by the
Justices! To me,
this is a lot scarier than the Liddy situation.
John
Rick Beckrich wrote:
> I'm no lawyer, but... here, condensed from Editor & Publisher magazine
> (1-30-00) is a report that
> the US Supreme Court rejected an appeal by G. Gordon Liddy (talk-show host &
> Watergate vet)
> to quash a lawsuit filed by a lady who was suing Liddy for comments he made.
>
> In this case the court rejected Liddy's contention that the woman be
> considered a "public figure" who would then be responsible proving the
> comments intended "actual malice".
>
> She needs only to prove Liddy's statements were negligent, untrue or
> defamatory.
>
> (Emphasis mine. Scary, huh... )
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|