lawrocket 3 #1 May 15, 2009 Sometimes, lawyers can secure a win and really screw a client in the long run. And sometimes a client will screw itself or tell the lawyer to win the battle and lose a war. For example, this gem: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D052743.PDF Balzaga v. Fox News Network, filed yesterday. Now that you all have made up your minds on who should have won simply on the names of the parties, here's what happened. Balzaga's picture was put up on TV with the words "Manhunt at the Border" on the screen. Anti-immigrant rabble rouser John Monti (of the Minutement (not to be confused with the awesome band from San Pedro)) had just reported beign beaten up by immigrants. Balzaga was arrested but released after questioning. Ten days later he's on Hannity and Colmes. Then Monti appeared. Throughout the show had "MANHUNT AT THE BORDER" and a picture of Balzaga. Balzaga and six others sued for defamation alleging that "Manhunt at the Border" was false and defamatory because there was no "manhunt" and they were not wanted by the police. They alleged that the show painted it like there was a manhunt for them because their pictures were shown. Here's the kicker: In California, certain forms of speech are protected. One of the defenses relied upon by Fox is that the headline was "fair comment, hyperbole and opinion." The trial court agreed with Fox: "Rather, a viewer more likely perceived 'Manhunt at the Border' as 'rhetorical hyperbole[,]' a 'vigorous epithet' or 'loose and figurative language.'" The majority on appeal agreed that the "MANHUNT" caption was an "attention grabbing or colorful way" of referring to Monti's search. I think the dissent was on in this one. I also think that this is gonna be some righteous ammo for the Fox News haters. This is one of them when I think, "You shoulda just fargin SETTLED! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
