Well, maybe some attorney on the list will want to comment, but I believe US law (in contrast to UK law) makes it very difficult for a "public person" to successfully sue for liable or slander. My understanding is that to be successful, such a "public person" must prove that the statements are false, and further that the person maiking them knew them to be false, and further that they were made with deliberate malicious intent to injure. That's a pretty tall order. Can't give you the detailed definition of "public person", but Lance definitely qualifies. I believe the law in regard to "public persons" prevented Arthur Ashe (one of my great heros) from stopping the media from revealing his infection with AIDS, of which he soon thereafter died.
But I take your point that unproven allegations of serious wrongdoing should be avoided, simply out of civility. Of course Lance is not on the list, but many here, including me, greatly admire him and so might take offense at unproven allegations. Maybe we all, myself included, need to be a little more careful about avoiding incivility, even when the subject is not on the list.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Houston, TX
gpvb1@comcast.net wrote: Sorry, but libelous statements are not a matter of free speech, despite what some may try to tell you.
Garth could be held legally liable for what he said. Perhaps he will now be added to the list of pending lawsuits over the issue. It is very sad indeed that things have reached that point, but there you have it.
Folks, it always comes back to the same thing - please think before you post!!!
Greg "not amused" Parker Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:42:23 -0400 From: pbridge130@aol.com To: crispyflotilla@yahoo.com, emeneff@earthlink.net, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]Re: twit . . .
Thank God someone had the simple decency to say this. Thank you, Ricky.
Peter Bridge SDCAUSA
-----Original Message----- From: r garni To: emeneff@earthlink.net; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Garth Libre is a twit . . .
Hello Everyone,
I think that this forum is designed for sharing opinions and imparting information. Garth did the former. I do not feel that he did so in order to directly or indirectly insult anyone on the list, and it is my opinion that he honestly feels those opinions which he expressed.
Is it the sort of opinion that gets one's panties in a bunch? Yes. Should we disagree if we do? Of course.
No reason, though, why we should be harsh, unkind or mean-spirited. Remember, we are all in this together, and there aren't that many of us out there. Let's be friends as they circle the wagons, OK?
Ricky Garni
Carrboro, NC