RE: Celebrity Gifs

From: Harold Federow <hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:36:31 -0800

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 10:30:22, sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu (Steven D. Jamar) wrote:
> 

>> 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.

Interesting question from a defamation standpoint. OJ is not _guilty_ of murder--the jury said so and this cannot be re=examined in any other proceeding. He may have killed her, which is what the civil suit is about. So, if a tabloid accuses him of the murder, then it is, by definition almost, false!

I wonder what others on the list think?

Harold Federow
<hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu> Received on Fri Sep 20 1996 - 16:34:02 GMT

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