If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Court rules Courtney Love did not defame her lawyer on Twitter, presumably because defaming lawyers is impossible   (cbc.ca) divider line 36
    More: Obvious, Courtney Love, Twitter, regulations, libel, Kurt Cobain, trials  
•       •       •

1025 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:23 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-25 02:31:25 PM
While the case was billed as the first "Twibel" trial in which Twitter and libel law intersected, Lawrence said it was tried by the same rules as traditional defamation cases.
Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.


Uh, hello? Reckless disregard for whether the information was false or not?
 
2014-01-25 03:10:59 PM

Theaetetus: While the case was billed as the first "Twibel" trial in which Twitter and libel law intersected, Lawrence said it was tried by the same rules as traditional defamation cases.
Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.

Uh, hello? Reckless disregard for whether the information was false or not?


That's slightly different from "didn't know it wasn't true."  If I publish something that says XYZ restaurant is overwhelmed with cockroaches because I saw the bug spray company out front and it turns out that they were actually  going to the building next door, that's not reckless disregard even though it isn't true.
 
2014-01-25 03:33:51 PM
Apparently Courtney Love tried to make Kurt go to rehab, but he said 'No, no, bang'
 
2014-01-25 04:03:23 PM
What do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

/great Phil Hartman bit
 
2014-01-25 04:13:42 PM
What's black and brown and looks good on a laywer?

A German Shepherd.
 
2014-01-25 04:15:31 PM
Courtney Love vs. a lawyer. It's a dilemma. I can't for the life of me figure out which side I should be on.
 
2014-01-25 04:28:37 PM
How do you stop a lawyer from drowning?

Shoot them before they hit the water.
 
2014-01-25 04:38:16 PM

forgotmydamnusername: Courtney Love vs. a lawyer. It's a dilemma. I can't for the life of me figure out which side I should be on.


No matter who wins........WE LOSE!
 
2014-01-25 04:45:54 PM

pueblonative: Theaetetus: While the case was billed as the first "Twibel" trial in which Twitter and libel law intersected, Lawrence said it was tried by the same rules as traditional defamation cases.
Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.

Uh, hello? Reckless disregard for whether the information was false or not?

That's slightly different from "didn't know it wasn't true."  If I publish something that says XYZ restaurant is overwhelmed with cockroaches because I saw the bug spray company out front and it turns out that they were actually  going to the building next door, that's not reckless disregard even though it isn't true.


Yes, but in this case, she was claiming that the lawyer was paid to lie. She didn't see "someone" being paid off and assumed incorrectly it was the lawyer, as in your hypothetical - there was no suggestion of it here such that a reasonable person could believe it to be true. That's why it's reckless disregard for the truth.
 
2014-01-25 04:46:52 PM

macross87: What do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

/great Phil Hartman bit


www.smbc-comics.com
 
2014-01-25 05:16:51 PM
Courtney Love may or may not have killed a famous rock star with a shotgun in 1994.
 
2014-01-25 05:18:06 PM

Theaetetus: Yes, but in this case, she was claiming that the lawyer was paid to lie. She didn't see "someone" being paid off and assumed incorrectly it was the lawyer, as in your hypothetical - there was no suggestion of it here such that a reasonable person could believe it to be true. That's why it's reckless disregard for the truth.


That's not what the jury saw, however. What they saw didn't lead to the conclusion that she had reckless disregard or malice.  Remember, it's the plaintiff that has to prove reckless disregard, not the defendant who has to prove that there wasn't.
 
2014-01-25 05:18:34 PM
8 million, aye? I guess you might as well aim high.
 
2014-01-25 05:24:33 PM

Johnsnownw: 8 million, aye? I guess you might as well aim high.


That way, settling for a meager 2 million seems like a deal!
 
2014-01-25 05:30:11 PM
Do you know why lawyers dislike going to the beach?

Cats keep trying to bury them.
 
2014-01-25 05:37:37 PM
An old man is on his deathbed. He summons his attorney.

"Do you remember," says the old man, "that express law degree we discussed? How much does it cost, and how long does it take?"

"A hundred thousand," says the attorney, "and you'll have it in a week. But what do you want a law degree for? You'll probably be dead in a week."

"Just get it," snaps the old man.

A week later, the attorney brings the old man his new law degree. "I have to ask you," says the attorney, "why do you want a law degree when you're about to die?"

With his last breath, the man says, "One...less...lawyer...."
 
2014-01-25 06:27:20 PM
I guess here the jury just had to determine what was a stupid thing to do and what was a criminally stupid thing to do.
 
2014-01-25 06:36:42 PM
She killed Kurt.
 
2014-01-25 06:53:28 PM
Whoever made up the word Twibel should be shot
 
2014-01-25 07:06:56 PM

pueblonative: That's not what the jury saw, however. What they saw didn't lead to the conclusion that she had reckless disregard or malice.


Not according to the story. Now, sure, the journalist may be simplifying things, but what the story says is:  Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.

Remember, it's the plaintiff that has to prove reckless disregard, not the defendant who has to prove that there wasn't.


Unless the jury received the wrong instructions. You're jumping to a conclusion that may be true or may be false, as you have no evidence either way.
 
2014-01-25 08:49:02 PM
First 'Twibel' trial

forum.sportsmogul.com
 
2014-01-25 08:55:57 PM

Theaetetus: pueblonative: That's not what the jury saw, however. What they saw didn't lead to the conclusion that she had reckless disregard or malice.

Not according to the story. Now, sure, the journalist may be simplifying things, but what the story says is:  Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.

Remember, it's the plaintiff that has to prove reckless disregard, not the defendant who has to prove that there wasn't.

Unless the jury received the wrong instructions. You're jumping to a conclusion that may be true or may be false, as you have no evidence either way.


Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the judge ruled that she is a public figure for libel purposes, ironically because she represents celebrities like Love.  The specific question the jury answered which established that Love was not liable for libel (hee!) was, "Did Rhonda Holmes prove by clear and convincing evidence that Courtney Love knew (the defamatory statement) was false or doubted the truth of it?"
 
2014-01-25 10:08:02 PM
styleslum.com

Same person.
 
2014-01-25 10:45:53 PM
I just came here to say it's really weird that there has been nothing new in the Entertainment tab since this showed up green over 8 hours ago.

Come on. It's a Saturday and there's NOTHING new in Entertainment?! Are the mods sleeping?
 
2014-01-25 11:11:14 PM
How do you libel a lawyer?

Call him an honest man.
 
2014-01-26 12:18:25 AM

Manfred J. Hattan: Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the judge ruled that she is a public figure for libel purposes, ironically because she represents celebrities like Love.


Seriously?  Hell, that might be the key point on appeal right there.  IIRC, the legal precedent says exactly the opposite, that an attorney is decidedly NOT made a limited-purpose public figure just by working a particular case.
 
2014-01-26 12:44:05 AM
Or, you can't take seriously anything Courtney Love says.
 
2014-01-26 02:18:10 AM

Flying Lasagna Monster: [styleslum.com image 530x340]

Same person.



Except for the ridiculous lips, the years (and heroin) have been very good to her.
 
2014-01-26 02:38:06 AM

Last Man on Earth: Manfred J. Hattan: Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the judge ruled that she is a public figure for libel purposes, ironically because she represents celebrities like Love.

Seriously?  Hell, that might be the key point on appeal right there.  IIRC, the legal precedent says exactly the opposite, that an attorney is decidedly NOT made a limited-purpose public figure just by working a particular case.


That. In fact, the model rules of professional conduct for attorneys say that an attorney does not gain any particular status merely by working for their client. I'd be surprised if this one stands on appeal.

/it'll more likely be appealed, and then settle
 
2014-01-26 05:31:51 AM
Why do lawyers wear neckties?
To hide their foreskin
 
2014-01-26 07:23:16 AM

Theaetetus: While the case was billed as the first "Twibel" trial in which Twitter and libel law intersected, Lawrence said it was tried by the same rules as traditional defamation cases.
Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.

Uh, hello? Reckless disregard for whether the information was false or not?


tjthesportsgeek.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-26 09:45:12 AM

Bslim: She killed Kurt.


And the police didn't go after her because she's so wealthy and powerful. Yeah, I've heard that one.
 
2014-01-26 10:38:17 AM
Courtney, always and forever the fake queen of grunge.

Kat Bjelland will forever hold the real title
 
2014-01-26 10:49:35 AM

Manfred J. Hattan: Theaetetus: pueblonative: That's not what the jury saw, however. What they saw didn't lead to the conclusion that she had reckless disregard or malice.

Not according to the story. Now, sure, the journalist may be simplifying things, but what the story says is:  Jurors determined that Love's tweet included false information, but the musician didn't know it wasn't true.

Remember, it's the plaintiff that has to prove reckless disregard, not the defendant who has to prove that there wasn't.

Unless the jury received the wrong instructions. You're jumping to a conclusion that may be true or may be false, as you have no evidence either way.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the judge ruled that she is a public figure for libel purposes, ironically because she represents celebrities like Love.  The specific question the jury answered which established that Love was not liable for libel (hee!) was, "Did Rhonda Holmes prove by clear and convincing evidence that Courtney Love knew (the defamatory statement) was false or doubted the truth of it?"


So, vapid stupidity is a defense against libel?  Awesome.
 
2014-01-26 11:04:37 AM
She had that skanky hot thing going on back in the day. And nice boobies.

NSFW
NSFW
 
2014-01-26 01:08:23 PM

Bslim: She killed Kurt.


Nah.

/serious
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report