VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

The Free Voice of Newburgh New York
Terms, Conditions and Disclaimer
Welcome to the unified voices of Newburgh New York.
You are free to participate, uncensored,
provided the rights and dignity of private persons are honored.
The opinions and statements expressed on this board
are in no manner those of the administration, our hosts or advertisers.
When required, those posting may be held accountable for statements posted.
Please be sure to read:
Terms, Conditions and Disclaimer

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is
the right of freedom of speech.
The right to freedom of speech allows individuals
to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government.
The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification
for the interference with the right of free speech
where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech.
A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation.
The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech
that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.
The right to free speech includes other mediums
of expression that communicates a message.
Cornell Law School

*************************
SLANDER
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures
the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.
The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect
his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service,
or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage.
In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum.
Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Written or printed slanders are libels.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/85BAB88B-0660-4AB6-A2F5C32E716A6D52
A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person
that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.
Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit
against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media
-- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than
slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.
LIBEL
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/civ02.htm
Published material... meeting three conditions:
(1) the material is *defamatory* either on its face or indirectly;
(2) the defamatory statement is about someone who is *identifiable* to one or more persons; and
(3) the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e., published.

NOTE: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/civ02.htm
ACTUAL MALICE Publication of defamatory material "with knowledge that it
was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The term
originated in a landmark 1964 Supreme Court case in which "The New York
Times", as defendant, prevailed over an Alabama public-affairs commissioner.

The court ruled that *public officials* could not recover damages from
defamatory material unless they established that it was published with
actual malice. The "Times-Sullivan," or actual-malice, argument has been
applied to public figures as well as officials, but a 1974 Supreme
Court decision ("Gertz vs. Welch") in effect narrowed the definition of
"public figure."
Actual malice should not be confused with "legal" or "common law malice",
which connotes ill will, spite, etc.
*************************

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,
and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person,
than he, if he had the power,
would be justified in silencing mankind."
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty


[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a new public message:
 * Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
 * HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.