 showed a reckless disregard for truth (that is, he "entertained serious doubts as to the truth" of a statement but still published it).
private figures involved in matters of public concern must prove negligence: that is, the defendant failed to check a story before publication.
in libel cases concerning private figures not involved in matters of public concern, there is no constitutional protection and state libel law governs the case.
if i'm not mistaken, the test of actual malice was applied only to public officials in the sullivan case and extended later to include public figures in curtis publishing co. v. butts.
for more information, check out chapters 14 and 17 of anthony lewis's very readable "make no law."
"Sounds like responsible reporting rather than libel to me"
Exactly, this suit will go nowhere. Disgruntled business owner sues newspaper for reporting on a labor disagreement. Big snooooze....
Defamation, Libel and Slander Law
By Aaron Larson.--expertlaw.com defendants.
CORRECTED VERSION plaintiffs.
just one more thing..
i think i might've misread the ap entry on truth. in retrospect, i think the issue there is not whether truth is a universal defense but whether the burden of proof rests with some plaintiffs who are private figures. my apologies.
"the states are divided on whether and in what circumstances the private individual will have to prove falsity if the matter is not one of public concern" (352).
OK, so a Times stringer reports on an amusing dust-up at a local coffee place, giving both sides of the story, and one party (the owners, and, of course it's the owners) sue for libel? Good God. I wasn't sure where I stood before on this little labor dispute, but now I know I really feel bad for the people who work at Gorilla Coffee.
I'll stop now before I get sued by these people.
Yeah, given how slanted toward the owners the coverage ultimately was, this kind of validates the Gorilla employees' complaints. I picture one or both of these women simmering, seething, their bile rising over the months as everyone else forgets and moves on and then: "I'll show that New York Times!!!" Maybe they're hoping they can settle and make up for the lost week's business. But I hope the judge humiliates them.
who knows how the courts will rule? but if i understand this right, then the significance of saying they're private figures not involved in a matter of public concern means there's a lower standard of proof for libel and the burden of proving the statements true lies with the defendants.
The matter is of public concern.
The defendants did not falsify what color undergarment the defamed wore, they wrongly and viciously attacked the training method and the atmosphere of a small private establishment that provides a local service.
The Journalist didn't exactly backtrack along a trail of tears to a wet island, he only capitalized on average anxiety and misunderstanding of the standards of high pressure work.
To be fair, it is not for the unwounded to weigh in on such an excessive legal issue, but it is valid to express concern publicly.
If I had to guess, I'd think neutral reportage covers the Times.
Neutral reportage apparently refers only to cases involving public figures or matters of public concern.
Some on the uninformed outside, might infer from the facts forwarded here, that the reporter was either too lazy or too timorous or too vindictive to investigate the defamatory accusation before publication of a raw letter. Or, the reporter was so excited at showing what cool new friends he had that he was compelled to publish their private letter without delay.
In the time it took finally to provide neutral coverage of a private and unresolved business dispute, one side was apparently injured.
Repeating a potentially malicious charge by direct quotation from original source was a first instance of publication of the unproven offense.
At the time of publication, there was every reason to think that it was possible for a risk to materialize, such a risk includes the appearance of negligent conduct resulting in loss of press credential.
The blog format might stand out and be accepted as an exception to publishing standards. Generations of marooned trolls and chipper creeps have served to erode civilized behavior let alone journalistic tradition, in fact, the only user type who might find the New media platforms friendly is the belittling kind.
This case could set precedent.
Fortune favors lilies, mustard seeds and sparrows.
Umm, NY Times reprints Wikileaks documents and is still going strong, but Gorilla Coffee thinks they can sue them for reprinting the employee walk-out letter? Suuuuure...
Wow, out of 30 comments so many avoiding the legal substance of the matter at hand.
Those stranded in pitiful professional aspiration, or stuck on sleeping through the now and waiting for the (Notwithstanding) never, can learn from Strand's latest piece, posted at this cluttered link:
wherein he writes with his metaphorical phallus to idiopathic ill effect.
Others, might hold back and view how trespasser types senselessly fill up time and space just justifying their pathetic sub-mediocrity.
Or still, how skill and tools and devices of the pen are wasted in the disordered thinking that the mechanic is menacing to the judicious.
Carlos Slim Helu was born in Mexico City, Mexico. His father, Julián Slim Haddad, a Syriac-Maronite Christian, immigrated to Mexico in 1902 from Lebanon, alone at 14 years of age, speaking no Spanish. His mother was Mexican native woman. Why has this never been reported?Question Airbag "off" switches not allows in the US anymore?
Thread: Airbag "off" switches not allows in the US anymore?
Airbag "off" switches not allows in the US anymore?
A concern was also raised by the CVMA regarding the option allowed in the proposed Regulations for vehicles to be fitted with a manual air bag deactivation switch for the front passenger seat. This option is allowed for vehicles having only one row of seats, such as a truck or sports car with no rear seating positions, or vehicles with very small rear seats. While this was permitted previously in Canada and the United States, the U.S. regulation will not allow this option after September 1, 2012. The CVMA was concerned that this difference could prevent a vehicle purchased in Canada with this option from being exported to the United States at a later date. This option existed in the previous Regulations, and provides flexibility to manufacturers in those cases where a user may want to place a child restraint in a vehicle having small or no rear seating positions. Transport Canada is not aware of any concerns with this option for Canadian vehicles currently in operation; thus no changes have been made to this amendment.
For those of you who follow the US regulations more closely than I do - can you give me more details? What do people who have a pick-up truck without a back seat do if they're buying a model made after Sept 1, 2012 and need to transport kids? Have there been other options put in place or are they just out of luck if they have a rear-facing infant or child?
Re: Airbag "off" switches not allows in the US anymore?
Out of luck, unless they get a waiver AND convince someone to install a switch, if the manufacturer doesn't allow installation of a rear-facing car seat because they don't trust the sensor not to malfunction. I have seen a few trucks already with this issue.
Just as a tangent to this thread... I've always wondered why the Smart car never had switches. I asked their CS once and was told it wasn't allowed.
Last edited by unityco; 05-09-2013 at 11:17 PM.
Yeah, they've been being phased out for a while.
The Smart Cars don't allow car seats in them period because of the rigid frame and the design of the seatbelt system to manage the energy transfer in a collision.
I watched a really cool documentary once on the smart car where they talked about how they first made a car that had a super strong frame so that the passenger space was protected even without a substantial crumple zone - but then they had to figure out a way to reduce the energy transfer to the passengers.
So there are all sorts of "high tech" things in a smart car - load limiters, the airbags, the stretch of the seatbelt system, pre-tensioners... they all work together to allow a safe "ride-down" time. But they don't work together with a car seat...
That's a lie, plain and simple. The ForTwo doesn't have a back seat and therefore they are allowed (not required, but allowed) to install airbag shutoff switches. The ForFour would have to meet the "too small back seat" definition that some compact pickups do.
As for the original question, there are already some trucks that do not have a back seat, do not have switches, and do not prohibit rear facing children. The vehicle manufacturers in those cases are confident that their sensors will work to prevent an airbag deployment when there is a rear facing child.
Ot but I was thinking about you today. Nice to see your around!
I thought Smart Cars do allow forward-facing seats. I saw one at an auto show, and it had a top tether anchor.
Yeah, I thought there was a TT too.
Someone at Lifesavers mentioned that starting next year, GM (I believe) won't allow children to ride in the front seat of their trucks. I didn't catch