Pahoran: Make your case for libel against DCP or shut up
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:26 am
Dear Pahoran:
I have never ceased to be impressed by your legal acumen, such as the thread in which you ludicrously---and mistakenly---asserted that churches cannot be taxed in a free country because churches are outside the purview of civil law.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss the hopeless ignorance of law that you demonstrated in the above statement. In the meantime, you have repeatedly asserted that Doctor Scratch has defamed Daniel Peterson, and that this supposed defamation is actionable. E.g., right here. You have stated that anyone on this board claiming to be a lawyer, like Sock Puppet (whom you specifically mentioned) should know not only that Peterson had been defamed by Scratch, but that it would be easy to prove this claim.
To quote something Chap said in a recent thread: hic Rhodos, hic salta. Make your case in support of your ongoing assertion that Scratch has libeled Peterson. Show the world how the cowardly anonymous posters here pretending to be lawyers don't know what they're talking about, while you do.
To keep it simple, we'll go with the definition of libel found in Section 558 of the Second Restatement of Torts. The elements of libel are:
(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;
(b) an unprivileged publication to a third party;
(c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the
existence of special harm caused by the publication.
We'll also use section 559 of the Second Restatement for a defintion of "defamatory communication:"
A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.
Keep in mind that Peterson has already publicly conceded, on his now removed blog post, that he has probably not been harmed by anything Scratch has said.
Oh, and by the way, we can also defer to Utah law on defamation if you want, since Peterson is a resident of Utah.
So go ahead, Pahoran. You've told everyone how easy of a case this is. Here's an excellent opportunity for you to stun Peterson's detractors on this board into silence. On the other hand, you also risk making a complete fool of yourself. But given your confidence in your position and understanding of the law, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about. Oh, and by the way, we can also defer to Utah law on defamation if you want, since Peterson is a resident of Utah.
Put up or shut up, Pahoran.
I have never ceased to be impressed by your legal acumen, such as the thread in which you ludicrously---and mistakenly---asserted that churches cannot be taxed in a free country because churches are outside the purview of civil law.
Pahoran wrote: Churches in particular are not taxed primarily because, in any ostensibly free country, they are not subject to the authority of the state. Anyone who claims to believe in "separation of church and state" but who advocates the taxing of churches is a liar.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18322&p=455869&hilit=separation#p455869
Please let me know if you would like to discuss the hopeless ignorance of law that you demonstrated in the above statement. In the meantime, you have repeatedly asserted that Doctor Scratch has defamed Daniel Peterson, and that this supposed defamation is actionable. E.g., right here. You have stated that anyone on this board claiming to be a lawyer, like Sock Puppet (whom you specifically mentioned) should know not only that Peterson had been defamed by Scratch, but that it would be easy to prove this claim.
To quote something Chap said in a recent thread: hic Rhodos, hic salta. Make your case in support of your ongoing assertion that Scratch has libeled Peterson. Show the world how the cowardly anonymous posters here pretending to be lawyers don't know what they're talking about, while you do.
To keep it simple, we'll go with the definition of libel found in Section 558 of the Second Restatement of Torts. The elements of libel are:
(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;
(b) an unprivileged publication to a third party;
(c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the
existence of special harm caused by the publication.
We'll also use section 559 of the Second Restatement for a defintion of "defamatory communication:"
A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.
Keep in mind that Peterson has already publicly conceded, on his now removed blog post, that he has probably not been harmed by anything Scratch has said.
Oh, and by the way, we can also defer to Utah law on defamation if you want, since Peterson is a resident of Utah.
So go ahead, Pahoran. You've told everyone how easy of a case this is. Here's an excellent opportunity for you to stun Peterson's detractors on this board into silence. On the other hand, you also risk making a complete fool of yourself. But given your confidence in your position and understanding of the law, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about. Oh, and by the way, we can also defer to Utah law on defamation if you want, since Peterson is a resident of Utah.
Put up or shut up, Pahoran.
