Court rules for NBC in George Zimmerman defamation case

[Sc0rp]

Lol. Reading your posts on Law is like peeking into the mind of a crazy person. Dr. Engineer Humble Pie. Esq. B.A, MBA, B. Arch, MD, RN, DDA, PhD and esp. BS.

Hahaha gawd, this forum needs a thumbs up button! XD

I'm tapping my screen but nothing happens! Nothing!

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't matter. The litmus standard has already been set. The court ruled improperly to that standard. It happens. It will be overturned on appeals when a court that understands the litmus standard as already set by higher courts apply that standard to this case.

The court ruled he was a "limited purpose public figure". Nothing in the definition of a limited purpose public figure requires access to media to defend ones self or to be a public official.

Please provide direct citations disputing the factual basis for his assignment as a limited purpose public figure.

 

[HumblePie]

LOL, higher courts overturn higher court rulings quite often. Recent examples would be recent Hobby Lobby and Aereo decisions. I have a big feeling this will be overturned on appeal pretty easily as the standard of the current litmus for "public" personas as already been set in several previous cases.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, higher courts overturn higher court rulings quite often. Recent examples would be recent Hobby Lobby and Aereo decisions. I have a big feeling this will be overturned on appeal pretty easily as the standard of the current litmus for "public" personas as already been set in several previous cases.

I get the feeling that, yet again, you do not understand the law that you're talking about.

 

[emperus]

Hahaha gawd, this forum needs a thumbs up button! XD

I'm tapping my screen but nothing happens! Nothing!

Humble tends to write in absolutes, like he actually knows of what he speaks. Generally the opposite is true.

 

[HumblePie]

The court ruled he was a "limited purpose public figure". Nothing in the definition of a limited purpose public figure requires access to media to defend ones self or to be a public official.

Please provide direct citations disputing the factual basis for his assignment as a limited purpose public figure.

The court is citing that he was made a limited public figure when he was protesting the case in 2010 for the police not arresting the son of a white police officer who busted the nose of a homeless black man.

That is what they used to apply the standard of limited public figure and that doesn't actually meet that standard.

Guess we'll have to wait and see how higher courts interpret it. I said I believe they will overturn on appeal.

 

[HumblePie]

Humble tends to write in absolutes, like he actually knows of what he speaks. Generally the opposite is true.

HAHA, you have no clue. You are the troll who said Zimmerman would definitely be found guilty and if not be shot by now.....

 

[Jaskalas]

Guess we'll have to wait and see how higher courts interpret it. I said I believe they will overturn on appeal.

Is it going to appeal? That takes money.

 

[HumblePie]

Is it going to appeal? That takes money.

Hasn't actually been to court really yet. It was a dismissal by the Sanford's Judge Nelson basically right after filing for a hearing and before any real evidence collection on part of Zimmerman's attorney in this case. Of which the attorney was going to start the process to subpoena for NBC's internal communications at the time of the incident to even start to see if the evidence could also amount to malice.

Judge Nelson threw it out before any of that could happen. Zimmerman's attorney already stated they plan to go forward with the case. So it should be filed in a higher court as an appeal if it hasn't already done so.

 

[QuantumPion]

The court is citing that he was made a limited public figure when he was protesting the case in 2010 for the police not arresting the son of a white police officer who busted the nose of a homeless black man.

That is what they used to apply the standard of limited public figure and that doesn't actually meet that standard.

Guess we'll have to wait and see how higher courts interpret it. I said I believe they will overturn on appeal.

Ironic how Zimmerman's defense of a helpless black man against abusive white police is used to help prove the case that news media portraying him as racist was not slander. :hmm:

 

[smackababy]

Hasn't actually been to court really yet. It was a dismissal by the Sanford's Judge Nelson basically right after filing for a hearing and before any real evidence collection on part of Zimmerman's attorney in this case. Of which the attorney was going to start the process to subpoena for NBC's internal communications at the time of the incident to even start to see if the evidence could also amount to malice.

Judge Nelson threw it out before any of that could happen. Zimmerman's attorney already stated they plan to go forward with the case. So it should be filed in a higher court as an appeal if it hasn't already done so.

That seems really stupid, to throw out a case before any evidence has been provided. "Nope, don't like the idea! Evidence doesn't matter, dismissed."

 

[fskimospy]

The court is citing that he was made a limited public figure when he was protesting the case in 2010 for the police not arresting the son of a white police officer who busted the nose of a homeless black man.

That is what they used to apply the standard of limited public figure and that doesn't actually meet that standard.

Guess we'll have to wait and see how higher courts interpret it. I said I believe they will overturn on appeal.

What is your basis for this?

 

[HumblePie]

That seems really stupid, to throw out a case before any evidence has been provided. "Nope, don't like the idea! Evidence doesn't matter, dismissed."

Yah, but that made him a limited public figure for that incident in 2010 and should apply the events in 2011 at all. Which is why the whole judgement I and many feel is completely wrong.

 

[HumblePie]

What is your basis for this?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...e-zimmerman-911-call-zimmerman-trayvon-martin

Explains it, but it's in the pdf linked to previously.

Zimmerman had made himself more difficult to defame, the judge wrote, because he had voluntarily made himself a public figure long before the shooting. In 2010, when the Sanford Police Department refused for weeks to arrest the son of a white police officer who had punched and broken the nose of a homeless black man, Zimmerman publicly protested.

That was an example, Nelson wrote, of Zimmerman "voluntarily injecting his views into the public controversy surrounding race relations and public safety in Sanford."

 

[hal2kilo]

Humble tends to write in absolutes, like he actually knows of what he speaks. Generally the opposite is true.

That's why the Don is usually required to straighten him out. But, still he insists he knows better.

 

[fskimospy]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...e-zimmerman-911-call-zimmerman-trayvon-martin

Explains it, but it's in the pdf linked to previously.

That's not what I asked for. You said he didn't meet the standard for a limited public figure. What is your basis for this?

 

[fskimospy]

That's why the Don is usually required to straighten him out. But, still he insists he knows better.

Yes, hopefully a real lawyer such as DVC will be able to chime in on this.

 

[HumblePie]

That's not what I asked for. You said he didn't meet the standard for a limited public figure. What is your basis for this?

I already previously posted those standards. As for those standards, they are not for unlimited timeframe either in regardless to a limited public persona. If defamation to his character came out without provable malicious intent when he was doing his public protest in 2010, then he wouldn't have a case at all. But that only applies to that event, not the events of 2011. Which is what Nelson for the ruling in her dismissal of the initial filing for hearings into this case.

Right now it's all prelim stuff and as stated Zimmerman's attorney hasn't even had a chance to subpoena for internal communications at NBC to even start looking for malicious intent even if somehow George can be deemed a limited public person during the time the alleged defamation occurred.

 

[smackababy]

Why does it matter if he is a public figure? If I understand defamation laws correctly, they only have to show it caused harm and was done in malice. And, the case was thrown out out before they even had a chance to attempt to show evidence for that, according to Humble. That seems incredibly stupid and reeks of "fuck you GZ, regardless of what the law says".

 

[Cozarkian]

2) none of this matters anyway because if you read the judges ruling, you'd see that Zimmerman was ALREADY seen as a racist before NBC showed up.

Can't you see that makes it worse? If a person is perceived as racist, deceptively editing their statements to give definitive proof that perception is correct is worse than if there was no prior suspicion of racism.

Imagine the following interview about a person whose wife disappeared:

Q: A lot of people are claiming you didn't have a happy marriage, are you happy she is gone?

A: Your asking if I'm glad my wife disappeared? Of course not. If I wanted her gone, I would have filed for divorce.

Q: So you still loved your wife?

A: Yes.

The media edits it to:

A: Your asking if I'm glad my wife disappeared? Yes.

The above edits would be substantially more reckless and damaging if people already thought the man killed his wife, as opposed to there being a general perception that his wife had packed up in the middle of the night and left him.

 

[Cozarkian]

Why does it matter if he is a public figure? If I understand defamation laws correctly, they only have to show it caused harm and was done in malice.

If he's not a public figure, he only has to show negligence, not malice.

 

[HumblePie]

If he's not a public figure, he only has to show negligence, not malice.

True, but it doesn't hurt to show malice as well.

 

[Cozarkian]

True, but it doesn't hurt to show malice as well.

Agreed.

 

[smackababy]

If he's not a public figure, he only has to show negligence, not malice.

I understand that, but the court (again, according to Humble) seems to have thrown the case out before any evidence was allowed to be shown to support malice. And that looks like a ruling filled with malice.

 

[Jaskalas]

Zimmerman had made himself more difficult to defame, the judge wrote, because he had voluntarily made himself a public figure long before the shooting. In 2010, when the Sanford Police Department refused for weeks to arrest the son of a white police officer who had punched and broken the nose of a homeless black man, Zimmerman publicly protested.

That was an example, Nelson wrote, of Zimmerman "voluntarily injecting his views into the public controversy surrounding race relations and public safety in Sanford."

Dear god... the Judge cites Z-man acting in defense of a black man, to defend NBC painting Zimmerman racist. Not sure my head can survive that twisted torture.