David Honig wrote:
> 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?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. If your "amateur journalist" has,
for instance, a videotape of some guy having sex with Tom Cruise (to take a
case ripped from today's headlines), then why would he need court-ordered
discovery? Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).
Give us a specific hypothetical and you'll get specific answers.
> Is the lesson that the young
> journalists have used 'hedge'
> phrases, like 'sources under
> condition of anonymity say...'?
If you're asking this in regard to libel, probably not.
> 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...
Your question assumes you are already in court. This means you are being
sued and the clock is running on your lawyers. Witness can also disappear,
be disqualified, lie or not be believed. Lots of luck.
Though courts try to find the "truth," their primary function is to provide
an alternative to "self-help." As long as most people perceive them as
reasonably fair, then they'll go to court rather than shoot their neighbors.
Most people see this as a good thing. I think there are even better ways to
handle disputes, but between the status quo and unfettered self-help, I'd
probably opt for the status quo. (After all, there's always time for
self-help later, if the courts come up with the wrong decision.) :-D
S a n d y
