May 17, 2004
According to a story in the current issue of The Forward, Florida circuit
court judge Catherin Brunson dismissed a libel case brought by a Jewish
woman against Jews for Jesus. The plaintiff alleged that the organization
had published an announcement that the plaintiff had
Folks: The RELIGIONLAW list software is configured by default
to block all posts that are more than 40 kilobytes. This generally
means that (1) you can't post large attachments, and that (2) if you're
quoting others' posts that quote others' posts that quote others' posts,
you'll at some
Do we know anything about the judge in this case; I realize judges are *supposed*
to not bring their religious beliefs into the courtroom, but having testified
against Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, I know that is not always the
case. Perhaps this judge is so certain of her own religous
Title: Message
Possible. Or perhaps, at least
as to defamation law,the judge believed that in fact, most people would
respect others' decisions to switch religions -- even if they disagree with such
a decision -- and thus would not subject the switcher to contempt, derision, or
obloquy.
In a message dated 5/17/2004 8:25:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Could one argue that the court in this case in effect coerced this association upon the plaintiff, in disregard of her freedom of expressive association?
Would it not be more accurate to say that the court
InWeinerv. Time Life Inc.507
N.Y.S.2d 784the court dismissed a libel claim brought by an Orthodox Jew
against Timemagazine, whichwrote that he "no longer wore his
yarmulke while he was out driving." Weineralleged
thatTime fabricated a quote that had him saying that he removed his
Well, I agree that Justice Scalia's disavowal of
theBoerne "proportionality and congruence" test -- and his
proposal to further eviscerate section 5 in all but race-discrimination cases --
is interesting, in a "how low can he go?" sort of way. But it's
hardly the most important news of the
i haven't studied it for awhile, but i don't recall the test for defamation being how the person feels about it, but rather how others perceive it. unless it is defamation per se. it seems pretty unlikely that accusing someone of believing in Jesus is on a par with saying he or she has a
