Let me work this out. If you are a prosecutor and have the burden of proof, then the “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a lower standard that “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Because you only have to rid the juror of any reasonable doubts. If the juror has only unreasonable doubts left then he should vote guilty under the “reasonable doubt” standard and “not guilty” under the “shadow of a doubt” theory.

Yep, I said the obverse in my example.

“Anne [Coulter], you ignorant slut,…”

“Nancy [Grace], you ignorant slut,…”

“Rudy, you ignorant slut,…” [with a quick superimposed photo of his drag costume]

It’s not as though the quality of argument hadn’t sunk that far already, so at least we should be able to resort to the “classic” smears, putdowns, and ad hominems (ad feminams?).

Then there are all those wonderful Elizabethan insults, just waiting to be put back to use: “Mitt, thou mangy louse-clothéd pox-riddled whoreson,…” — pungent rhetoric far spicier to the hearing than the poor insipid stuff inflicted upon our ears these days.

If we can’t get civilized debates any more, let us at least see some honest gutter-brawling.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a much tougher standard than beyond a “reasonable doubt”. In other words, you can have unreasonable doubts and still find a person “not guilty” whereas if the standard is “beyond a shadow of doubt” you would have to find the person guilty.

Would you please re-read, and perhaps edit, that last sentence? I’d think a juror with (only) unreasonable doubts of a defendant’s guilt would have to vote “guilty” under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, and “not guilty” under the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard (if the latter were ever actually used) — essentially the reverse of what you’ve just said.

Nora:

And how COME no matter who says what about who, somebody just has to single me out?

It’s your very success, as symbolized by that big glittery golden Quill — ooooh, shiny! — that attracts the attention, the envy, and the requests for you to lend, invest, or give away your proceeds. Congratulations, by the way. Would you like to join me in an effort to retrieve some misdirected Nigerian funds? With your money and my effort, hey….

Karen Scott:

Jane, you ignorant slut,…

That echoes Dan Ackroyd’s line in the parody debate program, Count Pointercount, back in the early days of Saturday Night Live.

Of course I understand that in this case, you’re demonstrating libel per se, so that Jane can sue you as an object lesson for the class…..

Emma, is that cat wearing a sweater? How’d you do that? My cat would pee on my bed if I tried to get him to do something like that.

Hehe. Jayne. Actually it’s his favorite purple velour jumpsuit. And I started when he was too young to notice he was being brainwashed into thinking it’s normal for a cat to wear clothes. Some of his favorite outfits.

LOL! Emma! I see how evil she is. She got you to miss precious reading time in order to knit her a sweater. Very evil kitty. *G*

Not only is he evil, he’s a perpetual line crosser. He knows I hate, HATE for him to “groom me” but he does it anyways. Usually sneak lick attacks while I’m asleep. It feels like someone is trying to rip off my skin.

But why assume the woman was aware it was false? She didn’t work at the bookstore, and who knows what her “source” was, but in any case, I think people repeat stuff they believe to be true all the time.

Unless she was sitting next to La Nora when it supposedly happened then she had no way of knowing what she was repeating was true. And I personally think it’s irresponsible to repeat it.

1. As an “insider” what kind of work ethic does she have if she isn’t loyal enough to her employer to keep her mouth shut?
2. Why was she sharing the information? What was her ultimate goal? Seriously. Even if what she was saying was true, how did it affect her? By repeating the information was she trying to prevent something bad from happening? I doubt it. In my opinion she was repeating the information for the same reason a lot of people do, it gave her an illicit thrill. (And no, not that kind of illicit thrill. :|)
Yes, I’m Miss Pollyanna Prissy Pants but I hate the Enquirer. I don’t look at the gossip shows and the only gossip I listen to is usually about the industry. And even that I take with a grain of salt.
I don’t want to go off the deep end (probably already have) but I assume La Nora worked damn hard for what she has. And who’s to say someone dismissing all she’s accomplished didn’t hurt her.

I think, from what I was told, the woman intimated that she was an industry insider, and everyone who was knew this. And then got snippy and defensive when asked what her connection was to publishing.
But yes, I agree, people hear rumors or speculations, take snippets or the whole cloth, repeat, until it seems true. And along the way, someone who hears the repeat genuinely assumes it’s true.

See. Why was she defensive if she hadn’t done anything wrong?
And people don’t seem to understand how hurtful repeating something as the truth can be for the person who’s being talked about. Even celebrities have feelings. I think people forget that. I was reading a post by a writer last night that was quite affected by the things people were saying and repeating about her. It affected her self-esteem, her career and her home life. And why? Because people took gossip as gospel.

I think, from what I was told, the woman intimated that she was an industry insider, and everyone who was knew this. And then got snippy and defensive when asked what her connection was to publishing.

But yes, I agree, people hear rumors or speculations, take snippets or the whole cloth, repeat, until it seems true. And along the way, someone who hears the repeat genuinely assumes it’s true.

I’m interested in the `reckless disregard’ angle of things. And hope Jane addresses this in an article down the road. So many layers and hues to the issue.

I’ve always wondered how rags like the National Enquirer or esp., the one with the “news” about alien-politicians, don’t get sued more often.

Gennita, I will never forget Dominick Dunne talking about how all the journalists covering the OJ Simpson trial would rush to get the new Enquirer to get caught up on all the info surrounding the trial (he included himself in this group). Apparently, the Enquirer is known to have a high level of veracity in its stories (good sources, he said) and the best defamation lawyers vetting the pieces.

You’d think since the person got caught in a blatant lie she’d at least have the decency to backpedal or scurry away. Instead she used the old “Everyone knows the big secret” which translates into I heard it from so and so who it heard from so and so, so I’ll repeat it like its gospel truth because it makes me feel important to have this inside information. Because in all reality wouldn’t sharing “sensitive” information with the public be career suicide?

But why assume the woman was aware it was false? She didn’t work at the bookstore, and who knows what her “source” was, but in any case, I think people repeat stuff they believe to be true all the time. Which is one of the reasons the bar for defamation against a public figure requires a finding that the speaker knew the info was false or acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth (and recklessness is itself a whole ‘nother legal standard). With all the rumors that circulate about people of fame or notoriety, I think it’s quite easy to believe certain things are true, and to repeat them with no malice intended toward the person in question. That the person in question might find them hurtful or offensive is clear, but free speech jurisprudence has been really adamant that speech can be both perfectly legal and utterly offensive at the same time. And the logic extends to defamation, as well.