Re: [Leica] Freedom of expression and responsibility

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

DonjRxxxx,

>>I am surprised Bryan did not go ahead with his brief that the truth is an
absolute defense to libel and slander and there appears to be plenty of
proof
as illustrated by the latest post which reads:


"I bought a new M6 body from Don Chatterton a few weeks ago. As I was about
to go on a trip to London I just left it alone until I got back. I did not
want to use a new camera on my vacation and my existing M6 was a proven
entity. Once back I opened this new M6 and went to attach a lens, it would
not go on, tried 5 lenses and none would lock on. Called Don and he was
gracious enough to exchange it. It still cost 65.00 to ship it back to him
(Mail Boxes Etc.). This is rather a glaring defect not something buried deep
within the camera. Stuff happens and all that but for an 1800.00 camera body
to be unusable right out of the box is very disappointing Maybe that guy
that screwed up the pressure plates got promoted to final inspection."<<


Despite your citing the above in three different posts, I fail to see any
libelous or slanderous statements here. Maybe I'm missing your point(s)? Who
are you suggesting was slandered here? Don Chatterton? This sounds more like
a testimonial to his handling a problem in the best way possible. "that guy"
who screwed up the pressure plates? It's been a while since my first year
law school torts class, but I seem to remember that the subject of a
defamatory statement has to be identifiable by those to whom the statement
is made. I don't think any of us have a clue as to who this guy is. Leica
themselves? Under certain circumstances a corporation can be the subject of
actionable defamation, but a first person report of a single defective
product in no way rises to the level of libel or slander - at least not as
presented here.

I didn't launch into a discourse about libel/slander (defamation) law
because my post was in response to some First Amendment discussions. I was
merely trying to point out that, while they can overlap, libel/slander and
First Amendment free speech concerns are different things.


Bryan


- ----- Original Message -----
From: <DonjR43198@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Freedom of expression and responsibility


> In a message dated 5/31/99 12:02:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
> mrabiner@concentric.net writes:
>
> << Bryan Caldwell wrote:
>  >
>  > As one of the resident attorneys here (ducking . . . <g> ), I need to
point
>  > out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to this list. There are many
>  > members who are not contributing from the United States, and, even in
the
>  > U.S., the First Amendment protects against government regulation of
speech
> -
>  > not the negative responses of others. As long as the government is not
>  > regulating the content of the LUG, the First Amendment does not come in
to
>  > play.
>  >
>  > Bryan
>  >
>  >snip
>  I was wondering if because of the physical/technical structure of this
>  group: being an Email Reflectorship we would have some more rights than
>  a Newsgroup.
>  A Newsgroup would seem to be a form of broadcasting but we are just a
>  controlled distribution of E Mails. A group of friends sitting around
>  talking; or 777 of them.
>  As there is probably no precedent for trying to prove a libel or some
>  such case against a discussion in a Email list or even a newsgroup that
>  makes it hard to determine.
>  Mark Rabiner
>   >>
>
> I am surprised Bryan did not go ahead with his brief that the truth is an
> absolute defense to libel and slander and there appears to be plenty of
proof
> as illustrated by the latest post which reads:
>
>
> "I bought a new M6 body from Don Chatterton a few weeks ago. As I was
about
> to go on a trip to London I just left it alone until I got back. I did not
> want to use a new camera on my vacation and my existing M6 was a proven
> entity. Once back I opened this new M6 and went to attach a lens, it would
> not go on, tried 5 lenses and none would lock on. Called Don and he was
> gracious enough to exchange it. It still cost 65.00 to ship it back to him
> (Mail Boxes Etc.). This is rather a glaring defect not something buried
deep
> within the camera. Stuff happens and all that but for an 1800.00 camera
body
> to be unusable right out of the box is very disappointing Maybe that guy
> that screwed up the pressure plates got promoted to final inspection."
>
> There is no shortage of these personal testimonials to make the discussion
> interesting.
>
>