• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

VCDL v. Couric ruling

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
No the plaintiffs failed to meet VA’s defamation criteria.

From http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/171783.P.pdf, pg6:
To state a claim for defamation under Virginia law, a plaintiff must plead three elements: “(1) publication of (2) an actionable statement with (3) the requisite intent.” Schaecher v. Bouffault, 772 S.E.2d 589, 594 (Va. 2015) (quoting Tharpe v. Saunders, 737 S.E.2d 890, 892 (Va. 2013)). The first and third elements are not at issue here. The parties dispute only whether the statement — in this case, footage edited to convey silence — is actionable. To be “actionable,” a statement must be “both false and defamatory.” Id. (quoting Tharpe, 737 S.E.2d at 892). To recover, the VCDL must also establish that the alleged defamatory statement was “of and concerning” the organization. Id. at 598; Dean v. Dearing, 561 S.E.2d 686, 688 (Va. 2002).

Defamatory words are those ‘tend[ing] 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.’” Schaecher, 772 S.E.2d at 594 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559) (alteration in original). The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that actionable defamatory language is that which “tends to injure one’s reputation in the common estimation of mankind, to throw contumely, shame, or disgrace upon him, or which tends to hold him up to scorn, ridicule, or contempt, or which is calculated to render him infamous, odious, or ridiculous.”
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I disagree with the Democrat-appointed judges on the panel, of course. Virginia law includes a concept called "defamation by implication" - and recognizes that the defendant may have committed defamation by an implied misrepresentation of facts contained within a statement. See, what the Court did was a bit of a trick - by creating the false assumption that the silence on the tape, taken out of context and alone, comprised the "statement" that was the subject of the suit; our position was that the entire pseudo-documentary comprised the "statement", which implied that stupid gun activists don't know enough to answer simple questions about firearms law. Nevertheless, it is clear from publicly available information that the defendants were misrepresenting the facts in order to further a political agenda, so I think we got what we wanted: we demonstrated pretty clearly that those guys aren't reliable or credible. Thing is, they're preaching to their choir the same way I am to mine: the people who don't want to believe that there is any necessity for taking responsibility for one's own defense against criminal violence just don't want to hear the truth, and won't listen, no matter what.

I think the lesson for us is to stop trying to engage in rational discussion with a group of people who are fundamentally irrational or nonrational. People who are so self-important, self-aggrandizing, and self-centered that they can't hear anything that doesn't agree with the crap that's already rattling around in their heads, will never be convinced by truth, because they wouldn't know it if it came up and bit 'em on the leg.
 
Top