If John Oliver didn't read or believe Murray's attorney's presentation he should have.
I can see John Oliver on the stand now:
Oliver: But Your Honor, I honestly didn't believe the material they sent me. His attorneys don't specialize in defamation! [grin]
Judge: Zinger of a defense Mr. Oliver, Not!
Reckless disregard of the truth:
Disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a source [the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth , do not enjoy constitutional protection "Garrison v. Louisiana , 379 U.S. 64 (1964)"]
No Chip, that is not my point. My use of caps was not meant to offend by shouting, but simply highlighting terms. In the future I will use brackets.
You are really reaching Chip. Don't try to cloud your error with semantics!
Personal Injury: Any violation of an individual's right, other than his or her rights in property. The term personal injury is not confined to physical injuries.
In cases where defamation is alleged in the context of personal injury the criteria is:
Statements made must be empirically and discernibly false
A third party must have accessed the false statements
Injuries must be quantifiable
Statements must be unprivileged (not applicable here)
Damage to plaintiff's reputation must be measurable; it must correlate to the loss of money, business, relationships or property in order to be legally viable.
In this case it is libel and could cost Oliver and others millions as it was broadcast and now in print on the web.
The key to winning this case will be simply meeting the criteria I listed, the first two of which won't be difficult in my opinion, and the measure of the damage done, the latter being the most difficult.
This is where the expertise of personal injury will be most needed. Murray's attorneys are very capable and also can bring outside attorneys to strengthen any weakness they might encounter in litigation.
It is likely HBO will try to settle rather than risk open display of past patterns of behavior that might cast them in a bad light to a jury, advertisers and viewers. Considering the recent rise in public contempt for the entertainment media's failure to show restraint, it will be very difficult to seat a jury that favors media defendants.
If what you say about the rich and legal firms being bent on quashing free speech is true, then Murray's legal team will push the case to trial to inflict the most damage they can to the reputation of their opposition and "will win the war" even if they lose the case!
Entertaining people by insulting those persons we dislike, although some might find it offensive, is protected speech, however broadcasting statements about another person that are objectively false is not, whether they are malicious or not!
I hope we never lose the right to free speech and free press in this country at the hands of "morons in the media" who seek to use their bully pulpit to further their political agenda!
No, not joking. It is ignorant to assert Murray's lawyers are not specialists in defamation when their firm clearly has experience in tort litigation.
From the link to webpage of Murray's attorneys this article supplies above:
Jeffrey Grove: ... In his 20 years of practice, Jeff has focused his work on civil litigation and has represented clients for a variety of claims including PERSONAL INJURY, environmental, product liability, medical negligence and employment litigation, to name a few.
Jeff Holmstrand: ... He joined the firm in 2016 and focuses his statewide practice on defending products liability, MASS TORTS/class actions and complex insurance disputes.
David Delk: ... David’s law practice focuses on PERSONAL INJURY, medical malpractice, insurance disputes and employment disputes.
Your adversaries will use this article to demonstrate that Techdirt blatantly omits facts in their reporting, even when they cite sources that contain those facts.
RE: "It's no surprise that, looking over the website of Murray's lawyers, they don't list defamation as a specialty, but tend to focus on personal injury"
This comment shows just how ignorant you are of legal practice!
Defamation clearly falls under the practice of Personal Injury you dumb shit!
This is why you find your self in these types of predicaments, you don't know shit about the law before you begin shooting your stupid mouth off!
You deserve what you get. You will crash and burn!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Zoongide.
(untitled comment)
The contradictory evidence is contained in the 'Governments Independent Review Report'!
Read the report for yourself or shut up.
I provided it to you. You choose not to read it.
(untitled comment)
I can see John Oliver on the stand now:
Oliver: But Your Honor, I honestly didn't believe the material they sent me. His attorneys don't specialize in defamation! [grin]
Judge: Zinger of a defense Mr. Oliver, Not!
Reckless disregard of the truth:
Disregard of the truth or falsity of a defamatory statement by a person who is highly aware of its probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a source [the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth , do not enjoy constitutional protection "Garrison v. Louisiana , 379 U.S. 64 (1964)"]
Re: Re: Re: Re: foolish assertions
You are really reaching Chip. Don't try to cloud your error with semantics!
Personal Injury: Any violation of an individual's right, other than his or her rights in property. The term personal injury is not confined to physical injuries.
In cases where defamation is alleged in the context of personal injury the criteria is:
Statements made must be empirically and discernibly false
A third party must have accessed the false statements
Injuries must be quantifiable
Statements must be unprivileged (not applicable here)
Damage to plaintiff's reputation must be measurable; it must correlate to the loss of money, business, relationships or property in order to be legally viable.
In this case it is libel and could cost Oliver and others millions as it was broadcast and now in print on the web.
The key to winning this case will be simply meeting the criteria I listed, the first two of which won't be difficult in my opinion, and the measure of the damage done, the latter being the most difficult.
This is where the expertise of personal injury will be most needed. Murray's attorneys are very capable and also can bring outside attorneys to strengthen any weakness they might encounter in litigation.
It is likely HBO will try to settle rather than risk open display of past patterns of behavior that might cast them in a bad light to a jury, advertisers and viewers. Considering the recent rise in public contempt for the entertainment media's failure to show restraint, it will be very difficult to seat a jury that favors media defendants.
If what you say about the rich and legal firms being bent on quashing free speech is true, then Murray's legal team will push the case to trial to inflict the most damage they can to the reputation of their opposition and "will win the war" even if they lose the case!
Entertaining people by insulting those persons we dislike, although some might find it offensive, is protected speech, however broadcasting statements about another person that are objectively false is not, whether they are malicious or not!
I hope we never lose the right to free speech and free press in this country at the hands of "morons in the media" who seek to use their bully pulpit to further their political agenda!
Re: Re: foolish assertions
From the link to webpage of Murray's attorneys this article supplies above:
Jeffrey Grove: ... In his 20 years of practice, Jeff has focused his work on civil litigation and has represented clients for a variety of claims including PERSONAL INJURY, environmental, product liability, medical negligence and employment litigation, to name a few.
Jeff Holmstrand: ... He joined the firm in 2016 and focuses his statewide practice on defending products liability, MASS TORTS/class actions and complex insurance disputes.
David Delk: ... David’s law practice focuses on PERSONAL INJURY, medical malpractice, insurance disputes and employment disputes.
Your adversaries will use this article to demonstrate that Techdirt blatantly omits facts in their reporting, even when they cite sources that contain those facts.
Morons!
foolish assertions
This comment shows just how ignorant you are of legal practice!
Defamation clearly falls under the practice of Personal Injury you dumb shit!
This is why you find your self in these types of predicaments, you don't know shit about the law before you begin shooting your stupid mouth off!
You deserve what you get. You will crash and burn!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Zoongide.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt