Court Rejects Suit By Woman Who Was Navy Pilot

[Otis Willie]

Court Rejects Suit By Woman Who Was Navy Pilot

(EXCERPT) By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday,
December 13, 2003; Page A03

Former Navy Lt. Carey D. Lohrenz chose the life of a public figure
when she signed up as one of the military's first two female combat
pilots and cannot say she was a private citizen defamed when critics
and the news media erred in reporting her qualifications, a federal
appeals court ruled yesterday.

Lohrenz hoped to clear her reputation with the lawsuit she filed seven
years ago against the Center for Military Readiness, an adv...

U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 13 Dec 2003, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61056-2003Dec12.html

---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com

[WaltBJ]

Otis Willie > wrote in message >...
> Court Rejects Suit By Woman Who Was Navy Pilot
>
> (EXCERPT) By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday,
> December 13, 2003; Page A03
>
> Former Navy Lt. Carey D. Lohrenz chose the life of a public figure
> when she signed up as one of the military's first two female combat
> pilots and cannot say she was a private citizen defamed when critics
> and the news media erred in reporting her qualifications, a federal
> appeals court ruled yesterday.
>

IMNSHO the Court's opinion is BS. If she could get an F14 on a carrier
successfuly day and night through out a tour of sea duty she can
goddam well fly. And what those ****ants did was slander her
professional capabilities. I see no difference between that sort of
act and an article claiming a noted surgeon is an unqualified butcher.
Or 3 federal judges are 21st century Roy Beans, making up the laws as
they go along. Too bad she can't stick them in the back seat to
demonstrate her abilities.
Walt BJ

[Charles Talleyrand]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message m...
> Otis Willie > wrote in message >...
> > Court Rejects Suit By Woman Who Was Navy Pilot
> >
> > (EXCERPT) By Carol D. Leonnig Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday,
> > December 13, 2003; Page A03
> >
> > Former Navy Lt. Carey D. Lohrenz chose the life of a public figure
> > when she signed up as one of the military's first two female combat
> > pilots and cannot say she was a private citizen defamed when critics
> > and the news media erred in reporting her qualifications, a federal
> > appeals court ruled yesterday.
> >
>
> IMNSHO the Court's opinion is BS. If she could get an F14 on a carrier
> successfuly day and night through out a tour of sea duty she can
> goddam well fly. And what those ****ants did was slander her
> professional capabilities. I see no difference between that sort of
> act and an article claiming a noted surgeon is an unqualified butcher.
> Or 3 federal judges are 21st century Roy Beans, making up the laws as
> they go along. Too bad she can't stick them in the back seat to
> demonstrate her abilities.

American law on slandering public figure is rather strange. You must prove

1) What you said was false
2) Those comments demeaned the target.
3) The comments were *intended* to hurt the target.

In slandering a public figure, being wrong and hurting someone is just not
enough. The target must prove you intended to cause her emotional pain.
Most slander lawsuits die here. The defense of "we made a mistake" and
"we were sloppy" works.

If she was not a public figure, then merely proving #1 and #2 is enough.
That's why the judge's ruling that she's a public figure was important.

You are welcome to argue that American law should change. But please
understand that I'm not in charge of that department.

[Bill Kambic]

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message

> American law on slandering public figure is rather strange. You must
prove
>
> 1) What you said was false
> 2) Those comments demeaned the target.
> 3) The comments were *intended* to hurt the target.

Not quite!<g>

There's two kinds of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is written (and
now also covers the electronic media) while slander is oral. In either
case, for a plaintiff to recover they must prove that the defendant made
false statements that damaged the plaintiff's reputation by holding them up
to ridicule, shame, contempt, disgrace, etc. Truth is an absolute defense
to a charge of libel or slander.

The defendant is liable even if they, in good faith, believed the statements
to be true.

The plaintiff may plead and prove actual damages and may also claim punative
damages. The amount of actual damages are dependant upon the harm actually
suffered. Punative damages are designed to punish a defendant and may
greatly exceed the actual harm inflicted.

If the plaintiff is a public figure, then they must prove, in addition to
the above, that the defendant knew the charges were false or acted with a
willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for their truth.

> In slandering a public figure, being wrong and hurting someone is just not
> enough. The target must prove you intended to cause her emotional pain.
> Most slander lawsuits die here. The defense of "we made a mistake" and
> "we were sloppy" works.

There is no requirement that the defendant want to hurt someone (although
pretty common), only that they made false statements. If a public figure is
involved, the "we screwed up" defense might work, but it might not. It will
depend on the facts of the case.

I have not followed the case, so I don't know all the facts. The forgoing
is a VERY general statement of the law. When public figures and
institutional defendants are concerned there can be some significant
variations.

Bill Kambic

Memeber, State Bar of Texas (Retired)

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

>

[WaltBJ]

SNIP:>
> There's two kinds of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is written (and
> now also covers the electronic media) while slander is oral. In either
> case, for a plaintiff to recover they must prove that the defendant made
> false statements that damaged the plaintiff's reputation by holding them up
> to ridicule, shame, contempt, disgrace, etc. Truth is an absolute defense
> to a charge of libel or slander.
>
> The defendant is liable even if they, in good faith, believed the statements
> to be true.
>
> The plaintiff may plead and prove actual damages and may also claim punative
> damages. The amount of actual damages are dependant upon the harm actually
> suffered. Punative damages are designed to punish a defendant and may
> greatly exceed the actual harm inflicted.
>
> If the plaintiff is a public figure, then they must prove, in addition to
> the above, that the defendant knew the charges were false or acted with a
> willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for their truth.
>
> > In slandering a public figure, being wrong and hurting someone is just not
> > enough. The target must prove you intended to cause her emotional pain.
> > Most slander lawsuits die here. The defense of "we made a mistake" and
> > "we were sloppy" works.
>
> There is no requirement that the defendant want to hurt someone (although
> pretty common), only that they made false statements. If a public figure is
> involved, the "we screwed up" defense might work, but it might not. It will
> depend on the facts of the case.
>SNIP:

I guess I'm old-fashioned but where I was raised (Alaska) and when
(some time ago) if you gratuitously bad-mouthed anyone you had better
be ready to back up your words, because the law per se didn't mess
with such things then. OTH if someone was a genuine bad case they were
put on the next boat back to the States. BTW, FWIW my grandad was
chief of police.
Walt BJ