![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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...2003Dec12.html --------------------------- Otis Willie Associate Librarian The American War Library http://www.americanwarlibrary.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Court rejects suit against US military flights | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | September 19th 04 12:11 AM |
Female combat pilot is one strong woman | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 22nd 04 02:19 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Enlisted pilots | John Randolph | Naval Aviation | 41 | July 21st 03 02:11 PM |