General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDU Lawyers: Is this Defamation of David Hogg?
.
Some rightwing broadcaster spewed a bunch of stuff about David Hogg.
It sounds like he should have run it past legal first. What do you think?
.
.
Bernstein wasn't finished. Not by a long shot. Also ironic: At one point in his little rant there's a graphic behind him saying "Truth is the new hate speech."
.
.
This kid, David Hogg, is not concerned about gun safety, Bernstein speculated. He is concerned about pushing an agenda and making a name for himself, and, to be quite frank, I honestly wonder if this kid has something to do with the Stoneman shooting.
.
.
"Give me a break, he went on. It seems very odd. My gut tells me that this kid was either warned beforehandknew he wasnt going to be shot, knew he wasnt going to be targetedor was affiliated in some way with Nikolas Cruz.
Check out the C&L commentary along with the video at:
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/03/rights-dreadful-defamation-david-hogg
.
Motley13
(3,867 posts)Whatever that kid chooses for himself, he will succeed
spanone
(135,884 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)As such even wild conspiracy theories like that wont be legally actionable, especially since he went the I wonder route instead of outright claiming its true or fact.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)I wonder if the laws are different for public figures who are minors? (Granted, I know many child stars have been subject to worse).
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But he has inserted himself into the public debate and dialogue as an activist. That clearly is within what courts have said is a public figure in the past.
If you make it a point to go on TV and on stage as part of a national debate, you are a public figure.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)which would be someone who is generally well-known by the public, like a major politician, a movie star, or other celebrity. Or they can be a "limited purpose public figure," someone who has "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)he might have a hard time proving injury.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)who have no business owning and profiting from these weapons.
He's doing great at that.
Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,199 posts)Of course, Hogg at this point is a public figure, meaning that the standard to prove defamation is heightened (the alleged defamer must have known or should have known the information was false before publishing or propagating it.)
The initial statement is opinion and not actionable. But specifically accusing him of actual criminal behavior is not. Might be a little bit of wiggle room because he says, "My gut tells me...."
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)He should absolutely sue.
Its obviously a statement of opinion, and not factual, so it cannot be proven false and cannot be defamatory. Any lawsuit would border on frivolous.
Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)I disagree.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)where the plaintiff is a public figure (the legal definition of which is someone who has intentionally become involved in a public controversy). A public figure has the burden of proving the statements were made with intentional malice, which means either knowing the statement was false or was made with reckless disregard of the facts. That's not "Trump supporters" saying that; it's the law: New York Times v. Sullivan.