You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] AreWeSure ago  (edited ago)

She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial. They settled. The blogger tried to get the case dismissed on 1st amendment grounds and the judge said, the case could go forward. Then they reached a settlement of an undetermined amount and he retracted and apologized. However, Tarpley.net is still publishing. This suit certainly didn't "shut down" this website overnight.

Since we don't know what the amount of the settlement is, it could have been less than what his lawyer costs would have been to fight the suit. As noted above Jones would have more resources to fight a suit and would love the publicity of it.

The question for the blogger becomes is it worth it to me to spend $200,000 in legal fees to "win" my case? Is it worth it to risk losing?

Trump once sued the author of a book for $5 billion dollars because the author wrote he was not a billionaire. The book was published by Warner Books, so they had to resources to fight the case all the way down the line. It took three years. The case was dismissed and then Trump appealed, Trump finally lost the case, because he wouldn't comply with the discovery requests and kept trying to draw out the process. So this blogger understood he could fighting this for years.

0
1

[–] DarkMath 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

"She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial."

Melania Trump sued the blogger. A short time later he retracted and apologized. But that's not technically "winning". Epic.

Of course technically you're correct AreWeSure. But that's not the issue here. The issue is you are so dogmatically precise about some things but not others.

Where's your dogmatic precision in labeling Laura Silsby a child trafficker after she was, duh, convicted in Haiti of child trafficking?

Technically Laura Silsby is a child trafficker. Hillary intervened and got her out of jail. Technically that means Hillary Clinton condones child trafficking.

Working to get a child trafficker out of jail is technically appalling is it not?

0
1

[–] Mrs_Ogynist01 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

She was the plaintive and SHE accepted the settlement, therefore she won. The amount of the settlement is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that she shut down anyone else calling her a prostitute - because she wasn't. Your whole point was that it is too hard for a high profile individual to prove libel/slander - obviously, it's not. A lot of people have called Clinton a rapist. He could have picked someone without as many resources as Alex Jones to make an example of, but he hasn't. Bill Clinton does not sue because he is a rapist and a statutory rapist.

1
-1

[–] AreWeSure 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

She still didn't win. She settled......on very favorable terms, but what she didn't do is prove libel/slander. In fact, there's another case with the Daily Mail that is still ongoing. We shall see where that goes. You also don't know if she was the first to offer to settle.

This individual case does not change what I said: "The libel bar for public officials, especially a president is very, very high. To point where it's not worth it to sue."

Hustler Magazine said Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. He sued and lost.

In answer to the original question, "Isn't it strange......" The answer is a clear no. It's not strange because it's often not worth it, you can sue like Jerry Falwell, spend a lot of time and money and still lose.

Does anyone ask, "Isn't it strange that Alex Jones was never sued by George W. Bush for saying 9/11 was an inside job and selling Tshirts? No. They don't. And for the same reason.