Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]People keep discussing Wayfarer's malice in their defamation claim but I don't think that is mentioned in 47.1? I thought "without malice" refers to the defendant (the person who made the accusation and is being sued for defamation). The idea is that if the person was maliciously lying and making things up, they can still be sued for defamation. The privilege only covers them if they made their claims without malice. There was a quote somewhere where Burke said something like "oh, this law is meant to protect victims, it's not meant to limit the rights of a person who was falsely accused." But... every defamation plaintiff is arguing he was falsely accused kind of by definition. So you can never really reach the issue of whether 47.1 privilege applies without ligating the entire case![/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
