I had an arguement on how Michael Richards remarks would not hold up in court for slander. I just need to clarify why it won't. I'm assuming that a credible source needs to provide completely false information for it to be slander rather than two people verbally harrassing each other.
2006-11-28 00:05:17 · 5 answers · asked by RanJAH 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
To be slander, it must be a lie. It must either cause a loss of income or a loss of prestiege. For example, if I say "he is a red headed ugly man" that will be construed as an opinion. If I say he robbed his last employer. That would be slander unless it is the truth. The defense against slander is that it is the truth.
2006-11-28 00:31:04 · answer #1 · answered by bettyswestbrook 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, slander/defamation...ugh. here
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm
yes, you're pretty correct in your assumption. the thing is...he could be sued for slander. whether or not the judge would determine he's guilty of it is another matter. the burden of proof would be on the person suing him, to prove that michael richards actually committed slander. i mean, the guy could SAY he was damaged, but he would have to convince a judge. i guess it COULD happen. never say never. the fact that this was a racial issue could prove helpful for that guy.
2006-11-28 00:19:11 · answer #2 · answered by practicalwizard 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it could get into the court system but if they have no proof of anything it will most likely be throw out, you are right
2006-11-28 00:13:44 · answer #3 · answered by bshelby2121 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as there's proof that it took place, he can be charged. Some cases don't even need visual or audio proof; as long as the conflict can be proved or believed to have happened, it wouldn't be hard to sue him.
2006-11-28 00:10:03 · answer #4 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
some lawyer type could talk to you about it
2006-11-28 00:10:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋