3sheets2thewind wrote:-----------
DarthJ, as to the statements from the expositor being defamatory, or as you described circular reasoning.... can something be defamatory but not legally actionable, similar to how some things are hearsay but are exceptions to the hearsay rule?
Darth J I am not, but since he does not frequent MDB much lately, I'll take a stab at responding.
Defamation is generally speaking "a false statement that injures someone’s reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander."
In almost all instances, the statement must be false to be defamatory. Thus, evidence of the truthfulness of the damaging statement creates a defense for the one that uttered, wrote, or disseminated the injurious statement. Defamation, as a legal term, includes falsehood as part of its definition. Colloquial, non-legal uses of the term defamation by the public will often connote an injurious statement, regardless of its truth. However, a truthful statement is not legally actionable even if it harms. (Note, a statement may be injurious but true and be actionable as an invasion of the injured person's privacy, if the information was kept confidential prior to the speaker's/writer's/disseminator's making it public. But that is not actionable legally as defamation if the statement is in fact true.)
For some types of defamatory statements, the public contempt, hatred, ridicule or condemnation is implied. Depending on the state or other legal jurisdiction, having STDs, abhorrent sexual preferences, having committed a crime, having leprosy, etc usually fall in this category and the person claiming defamation does not have to prove the public contempt, hatred, ridicule or condemnation that must be proven for other types of false, injurious statements to be actionable.
Even after the falsity of the statement is proven, and its injurious effect proven (if that second element is required), defamation lawsuits often flounder when it comes to putting on evidence of damage in financial terms. Often, the evidence of financial damage is flimsy and would require the jury to make conjectures about the financial impact of the statement. Judges, both at the trial and appellate levels, will often dismiss a case before it goes to the jury if there is not concrete evidence of financial injury placed before the jury on which it can base a financial award.
3sheets2thewind wrote:-----------
I tend to think that many LDS misunderstand Oaks review, Oaks review supports the destruction of the actual papers, but Oaks review does not support the destruction of the printing press itself.
The actual papers were property of Walmart Law et al. until sold to patrons just as surely as the printing press was the property of Walmart Law et al. It was known by the Nauvoo City Council what the 1st Edition papers actually contained (and in my view, there was nothing defamatory and even if there was, the proper legal steps then as now were for JSJr to file a civil lawsuit where he'd have to first prove the falsity of the statements and prove injury from them in order to obtain an injunction against their dissemination to subscribers and the public, and prove the amount of financial damages in order to get a money judgment against Walmart Law et al.--not to use the power of the city government to destroy those papers).
The destruction of the printing press involved speculation about what Walmart Law et al. would publish in the future, in perhaps a 2nd Edition, a 3rd, and so forth. No doubt JSJr, Hyrum Smith, and others on the Nauvoo City Council based their speculation on what they read in the 1st Edition. However, speculation it nevertheless was.
As to the destruction of both the 1st Edition papers and the printing press, the destruction involved the use of governmental powers of the City of Nauvoo to stifle dissenting views and thereby violated the free speech rights of Walmart Law et al. The City charter, despite what in-the-tank Mormon lawyers will say to the contrary, invoked compliance by the Nauvoo City government with the Illinois Constitution of 1818 which protected free speech from government suppression of it.