From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
What would be the basis for a civil case? The only one I
can think of is that she may cause a bad effect on the
revenue from ticket sales to the Games by spreading lies,
but that would be a tough one to prove in court.
Steve.
[...]
Steve,
Well, if she is tossing statements around about
the fitness of certain citizens in the community, and either
inferring or outrightly contesting that those people who
possess arms as psychologically unfit to be at large, then
does that not fit the bill as a form of defamation, and slander?
If, in her fits of ill-temper, she accuses shooters
of anything, utters comments that in and of themselves
amount to unfounded accusations that could conceivably
lead to a shooter being denied his or her possessions, then
does not that also amount to collusion to unlawfully deny
someone of their rights?
Understand here, that being a Libertarian, I would
normally shy away from anticipating squelching the words
of another person. But, since she seems to be getting an
awful lot of 'free press (advertisment)' for her position and
you are not, does that not also infer collusion on the part of
those who would allow unfounded, unproven, and essentially
groundless accusations?
Take it to this: If she were to intentionally go around
to each of your neighbors and carry on in a way that caused
you no end of grief as a result of her intentional campaign to
defame you, and she knew for a fact that her words were
outright lies, unsubstantiated allegations of psychological
maladjustment, implying that you were a danger to those
around you, would you stand still for that, or go for the throat
(in a court of law)?
So, what is the difference between her actions at-large,
or in camera?
In a court of civil law, she would have to prove that
her words were in actual fact - true, in every way, and she
would have to PROVE that owning a firearm made a person less
than psychologically fit.
Care to guess where that would put the Army and
the Police?
Lacking the proof, she would have to capitulate,
or be found guilty, and be made to pay for the psychological
pain of every shooter who signed on to the case as a plaintiff.
Here is your golden opportunity to really sock it to
the opposition.
ET
--
If I remember correctly slander has to be against a specific
person or clearly identified group of people. Generic
slagging off of "gun owners" or "pistol shooters" wouldn't
cut it.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
