1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not a lawyer. ... I knew what you are saying. But don't a lot of states (all?) have a discovery exception to the statute of limitations, which stops the clock until the date that the defamed person learned (or would have reasonably known) they had been defamed? I know New York has a rule like that in the law. ... It wouldn't apply to this (the National Enquirer, because the statute of limitations is well past when any of them would have known about the silly articles). But I thought there were exceptions that push the clock starting back from the date the defamation occurred.
     
  2. Brooklyn Bridge

    Brooklyn Bridge Well-Known Member

  3. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    Nice

     
    HanSenSE and Driftwood like this.
  4. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    I really want to see how the RNC spins how the Pennsylvania primary results are really good news for Donnie J.
     
  5. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    It doesn't apply to publication of a defamatory statement that is generally available to the public, such as the National Enquirer. The very limited circumstances where the discovery rule has been allowed to toll the statute of limitations in a defamation case involve publications that the defamed person couldn't have known about with reasonable diligence, such as an internal corporate communication or an email from a former spouse to an employer (a significant percentage of modern defamation cases arise out of marital discord), but in those cases damages are typically limited since the defamatory statement's effects were limited.

    The rise of the Internet created some interesting fact patterns some 20+ years ago where people "discovered" defamatory statements three and four years after the fact when they put their name in a search engine and up popped an old web publication, often on a newspaper website or some other regional website and after the person had moved away.

    There's a bunch of cases where lawyers argued unsuccessfully for tolling under the discovery rule. Since that clearly wasn't working, some also attempted a theory of "continuous publication" on the idea that because the Internet is less perishable than a newspaper (or tv newscast) that every day it is up should be considered the day from which the statute of limitations runs. That was universally rejected, too, by the dozen or so courts that looked at it.

    Courts have also consistently held that Internet publications are generally available to the public, no matter how obscure or low traffic the website.
     
    Liut and Woody Long like this.
  6. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member


    It's obviously election fraud with Democrats illegally and unsuccessfully infiltrating the Republican electorate.
     
    Woody Long, Baron Scicluna and garrow like this.
  7. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    In a closed primary. Them bastards! We knew they was smart with that college learnin.
     
    Baron Scicluna and franticscribe like this.
  8. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

  9. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

  10. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Transition to.....prison?
     
    2muchcoffeeman and HanSenSE like this.
  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I'm certain there are a good chunk of people with problems with both - but you have to wonder about groups outraged by Columbia students protesting the war in Gaza and being disruptive who have no problems with Trump's court antics, and vice versa. Hey, they're both expressing their First Amendment rights! Right?
     
  12. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    But evidence of actual malice wouldn't have come out until Pecker testified.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page