At 09:11 AM 6/5/01 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>David Honig wrote:
>
>> Truth is a defense in the US for
>> slander. Do these girls want
>> their medical records subpeona'd?
>
>As it is for libel, which may be the case here. ("Slander" is spoken,
>"libel" is written.)
Oops.
>However, I don't think the courts would allow
>discovery in such a case. Either the alleged libeler can prove his
>statement ab initio or he is guilty. If the courts allowed discovery, it
>would be used as a backdoor technique to conduct fishing expeditions into
>anyone's private life.
>
I agree with you, but how could the amateur journalists give
authoritative proof if the courts don't allow it?
How is this handled in other cases?
Is the lesson that the young journalists have used 'hedge' phrases, like
'sources under
condition of anonymity say...'?
Even if discovery isn't allowed about the libelees, the journalists could
call witnesses ---Under penalty of perjury, Joe, did you plook Ms. X?
Did she tell you she had an abortion?
Of course, *that* could get hairy, if e.g., Joe exercises the 5th...
