All those folk who said in writing that the Paul Pelosi brouhaha was a gay tryst gone wrong, can they be sued?
My take:
Mr. Pelosi could sue for defamation (or even defamation per se)
but would not be likely to prevail. Why? Because proving one is
not gay is a high standard to meet; because the Pelosis likely
feel that being called "gay" is not derisive and so might laugh
at the suggestion he is gay and then, not sue; because Mr. Pelosi
is likely, by one standard or another, a public figure and so the
bar he would have to meet to prove defamation is higher than if he
were not a public figure.
A little help from California law (if Mr. Pelosi sued in
California):
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1700/
And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it was
based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me that
should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
significant punitive damages.
Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
My take:
Mr. Pelosi could sue for defamation (or even defamation per se)
but would not be likely to prevail. Why? Because proving one is
not gay is a high standard to meet; because the Pelosis likely
feel that being called "gay" is not derisive and so might laugh
at the suggestion he is gay and then, not sue; because Mr. Pelosi
is likely, by one standard or another, a public figure and so the
bar he would have to meet to prove defamation is higher than if he
were not a public figure.
A little help from California law (if Mr. Pelosi sued in
California):
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1700/
The accusation that he is gay is not the primary grounds for a
defamation suit. That includes the accusation that he would cheat on
his wife, the accusation that he actually knew the attacker and had
something to do with the reason he was attacked, and that the attack
was not at all based on anything political, those are the things
that, to me, make it defamation.
And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it was
based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me that
should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
significant punitive damages.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 6 Nov 2022 09:17:40 -0800 (PST),
"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
My take:
Mr. Pelosi could sue for defamation (or even defamation per se)
but would not be likely to prevail. Why? Because proving one is
not gay is a high standard to meet; because the Pelosis likely
feel that being called "gay" is not derisive and so might laugh
at the suggestion he is gay and then, not sue; because Mr. Pelosi
is likely, by one standard or another, a public figure and so the
bar he would have to meet to prove defamation is higher than if he
were not a public figure.
A little help from California law (if Mr. Pelosi sued in
California):
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1700/
The accusation that he is gay is not the primary grounds for a
defamation suit. That includes the accusation that he would cheat on
his wife, the accusation that he actually knew the attacker and had
something to do with the reason he was attacked, and that the attack
was not at all based on anything political, those are the things
that, to me, make it defamation.
And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it was
based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me that
should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
significant punitive damages.
And, assuming what I'm sure is true, that Mr. Pelosi is awake, and
assuming he signed a complaint or statement to the police, which seems
very likely since so many details are known now, the accusastion also includes that he has filed a false police report, and that is a crime.
Therefore, libel per se.
I suspect he has better things to do with his time, but I wish he would
do it.
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it
was based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me
that should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
significant punitive damages.
No. Statements made for the purpose of winning an election are
political speech, and that can never be the basis for damages in a
defamation suit. You need to prove that you lost (or failed to
get) a job, a promotion, that you lost sales, some actual monetary
loss.
Or you could go for intentional or negligent infliction of
emotional distress, but I doubt that Mr. Pelosi was distressed
about something like that. More like, "You've got to be kidding".
Maybe he could sue for injuries sustained while rolling around on
the floor laughing so hard he strained his diaphragm.
On 11/6/2022 8:46 PM, micky wrote:
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 6 Nov 2022 09:17:40 -0800 (PST),
"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
My take:
Mr. Pelosi could sue for defamation (or even defamation per se)
but would not be likely to prevail. Why? Because proving one is
not gay is a high standard to meet; because the Pelosis likely
feel that being called "gay" is not derisive and so might laugh
at the suggestion he is gay and then, not sue; because Mr. Pelosi
is likely, by one standard or another, a public figure and so the
bar he would have to meet to prove defamation is higher than if he
were not a public figure.
A little help from California law (if Mr. Pelosi sued in
California):
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1700/
The accusation that he is gay is not the primary grounds for a
defamation suit. That includes the accusation that he would cheat on
his wife, the accusation that he actually knew the attacker and had
something to do with the reason he was attacked, and that the attack
was not at all based on anything political, those are the things
that, to me, make it defamation.
And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it was
based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me that
should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
significant punitive damages.
And, assuming what I'm sure is true, that Mr. Pelosi is awake, and
assuming he signed a complaint or statement to the police, which seems
very likely since so many details are known now, the accusastion also
includes that he has filed a false police report, and that is a crime.
Therefore, libel per se.
I suspect he has better things to do with his time, but I wish he would
do it.
Have you ever heard of the term "turnip"?
Have you ever heard of the term "turnip"?Not in this context, no.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 339 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 09:53:35 |
| Calls: | 7,467 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,692 |
| Messages: | 5,626,425 |