RE: Celebrity Gifs

From: Steven D. Jamar <sjamar[_at_]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:30:22 -0400

> One way to think about this might be: all the tabloids stories on
> how OJ Simpson is guilty, or faking pictures of him in some guilty
> pose or other. Since he's been found not guilty, it must be
> defamatory I would think.

Why? To be defamatory in most states (all but Rhode Island, I think) the statement must be false. OJ would need to bring the defamation case to court and prove that the statement is false - and do so with a preponderance standard with the burden on him, not a reasonable doubt standard of proof on the other side.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. If it were, then the current actual civil trial could not go forward.

But with respect to the Crawford hypo - there are other actions besides defamation such as privacy and false light and commercial appropriation of a likeness, etc.

Steve Jamar

Prof. Steven D. Jamar
Dir. LRW Program
Howard University School of Law
2900 Van Ness Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20008
sjamar[_at_] voice: 202-806-8017 fax 202-806-8428 Received on Wed Sep 18 1996 - 14:41:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:22 GMT