NY Court Rules that FALSELY Calling Someone Gay is not Slander

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=154166758

I have a problem with this. It's not the "gay" part not being insulting. It's that the court has no problem with knowing falsity, holding that even if something is damaging as a matter of fact, as a matter of law it isn't.

Approving knowingly false statements? It's ridiculous.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Approving knowingly false statements?

I don't see this as "approving knowingly false statements" - just that it's not slander.

I mean, I could spread a rumor "Lawrocket is Russian." Not true (I assume) - but is that really damaging enough to be called slander?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Approving knowingly false statements?

I don't see this as "approving knowingly false statements" - just that it's not slander.

I mean, I could spread a rumor "Lawrocket is Russian." Not true (I assume) - but is that really damaging enough to be called slander?

+1
The whole premise of it not being slander is that it is not damaging. that being said....

You are soooooooo Gay....

Can't ban me, it's been ruled not a PA or an insult...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Andy9o8 3]

That's so retarded.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=154166758

I have a problem with this. It's not the "gay" part not being insulting. It's that the court has no problem with knowing falsity, holding that even if something is damaging as a matter of fact, as a matter of law it isn't.

Approving knowingly false statements? It's ridiculous.

Do I understand this correctly, if someone is not gay and you call them gay, it is not slander. However, if someone is gay and you call them gay, it is slander.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jgoose71 0]

OK, actually read the article:

Quote

Mark Yonaty sued, claiming a woman spread a rumor she heard in hopes that Yonaty's girlfriend would break up with him. He said the comment hurt and ultimately destroyed the relationship. Yonaty and his attorney didn't respond to a request for comment. The decision, as in many defamation suits, provides few details.

I this particular case, if the false claim was proven to destroy his relationship, the judge is fucked up. The claim of "gay" was there to imply "cheating", or "will never be able to love you" harming the relationship.

This is a case of a judge throwing justice out the window to score cheap political points, if Yonaty's claims are true that is.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[davjohns 1]

Quote

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=154166758

I have a problem with this. It's not the "gay" part not being insulting. It's that the court has no problem with knowing falsity, holding that even if something is damaging as a matter of fact, as a matter of law it isn't.

Approving knowingly false statements? It's ridiculous.

Mmmmm...I think I understand what they're getting at. See if you agree.

Being gay is no longer considered shameful. Therefore, the lie is not slanderous because it is not innately injurious.

For instance; I tell someone that Jerry doesn't do criminal law. That person goes elsewhere with their legal case. What I said was a lie and harmed Jerry...maybe even to my advantage if the person used me for their case...but what I said was not defamation or slander. It was merely a lie.

Hair splitting, to be sure. But I think I agree with the court.

If the woman spread the rumor that the man did not love his girlfriend and it was believed, the same result may have been attained. Would that be slander or defamation?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,132]

>I this particular case, if the false claim was proven to destroy his relationship, the
>judge is fucked up.

If that represents a valid court case, most high school kids (and a goodly percentage of college kids) would be in court around the clock.

[Shotgun 1]

I wish there was more info about the actual lawsuit. My first thought was... how old are these people??? I can't imagine, as an adult, being in a serious relationship with someone and breaking up with him over some rumor about him being gay. At least not without there already being some serious problems and trust issues in the relationship.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>I this particular case, if the false claim was proven to destroy his relationship, the
>judge is fucked up.

If that represents a valid court case, most high school kids (and a goodly percentage of college kids) would be in court around the clock.

Yes and no. Did they live together? How much community property did they have together? Do they have kids together? We don't know how serious the relationship was.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[davjohns 1]

Having agreed with the court in my previous post, I have thought through this matter and now reverse myself. :) Yep. Flip flopping on this issue. Here's why:

Although I agree with the court's logic, I do not agree with an underlying premise. I do not think society has accepted homosexuality to a degree that takes away the stigma of the accusation. I point to the recent and ongoing dispute over homosexual marriage in our elected bodies and before our courts. I point to outcries from the homosexual community for affirmative action on their behalf.

If we can declare sexual preference discrimination a thing of the past after such a brief transition (it has only been on the boards seriously in the past decade or a bit more), then why do we still have affirmative action for race after several decades?

No. I have to think there is still a stigma attached to sexual preferences and it is too early for a court to declare otherwise and change case law on the matter.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,132]

>Yes and no. Did they live together? How much community property did they have
>together? Do they have kids together? We don't know how serious the relationship
>was.

I agree that all of those things can complicate matters. But there are laws in place to handle them. Dividing assets is a common task that courts take on, as is child custody. None of it should be dependent on what silly names two people call each other.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Yes and no. Did they live together? How much community property did they have
>together? Do they have kids together? We don't know how serious the relationship
>was.

I agree that all of those things can complicate matters. But there are laws in place to handle them. Dividing assets is a common task that courts take on, as is child custody. None of it should be dependent on what silly names two people call each other.

Yes, the court takes care of those things, but it they wouldn't be in that position if it was not for the lies.

So you are saying that if someone spread lies about you that cost you a serious relationship, your home, and your kids, you don't have cause to sue? What about if it cost you your job? That's really the core issue of this case.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,132]

>So you are saying that if someone spread lies about you that cost you a serious
>relationship, your home, and your kids, you don't have cause to sue?

If the lie was "Bill Von is really a duck?" Or that my parents were English? Or that I'm gay, or that I'm no good at engineering or skydiving instruction? No.

Which is a good thing IMO. Imagine if you lost an election, and thus your income, because a group of people put up ads (say, someone calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans) that said you weren't fit to serve in public office - even though you were a decorated soldier who had served in public office. Should they be liable for damages?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>So you are saying that if someone spread lies about you that cost you a serious
>relationship, your home, and your kids, you don't have cause to sue?

If the lie was "Bill Von is really a duck?" Or that my parents were English? Or that I'm gay, or that I'm no good at engineering or skydiving instruction? No.

Which is a good thing IMO. Imagine if you lost an election, and thus your income, because a group of people put up ads (say, someone calling themselves the Swift Boat Veterans) that said you weren't fit to serve in public office - even though you were a decorated soldier who had served in public office. Should they be liable for damages?

While I agree that it is a slippery slope in a sue happy nation, I'm not sure I'm completely convinced.

Your example kind of sucks. Courts have already ruled that public officials and other public figures have a separate standard when it comes to this stuff because they willingly put them selves out there for the public. If memory serves, I think it was Britney Spears Vs. The Paparazzi or something like that. In other words, if John Kerry puts himself out there for me to critique, It's in my rights to call him a duck.

However, if he is not putting himself out there for me to critique, and I call him a duck and it causes him significant harm, it's a different story.

If I said, "Billvon couldn't fly a wingsuit to save his life", which we all know is a lie, and it cost you a very lucrative opportunity, (say, a part in the next Transformers Movie) do you think you have the right to sue?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

If the lie was "Bill Von is really a duck?".

Wait...wait!
Do you mean to say that is not true?

Maybe my sources were pulling my leg?



Aw...leave it here...you knew it was coming.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 3]

I agree with posts #1 & 11. I disagree with the posts that are inconsistent with those.

The several people in this thread who misunderstand the legal definition of defamation can be forgiven, for they're simply speaking outside of their respective specialties. The judges on this appellate court panel, on the other hand, have no such excuse, and are deserving of my foot up their asses. (Or your foot. Take your pick.)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I could spread a rumor "Lawrocket is Russian." Not true (I assume) - but is that really damaging enough to be called slander

Depends on the circumstances. What if my security clearance was an issue?

Here's an example: Is it a bad thing to be born in kenya? Really, is that an insult? So anybody who ever had a problem with the ridiculousness of "Obama born in Kenya" would probably have a problem with this, right?

It's not the "born in Kenya" part. It's the knowing falsity. And knowing falsities CAN cause problems. If it does cause a problem, what is the recourse?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

So anybody who ever had a problem with the ridiculousness of "Obama born in Kenya" would probably have a problem with this, right?

There's difference between having a problem with someone making a false statement, and suing them for slander over it. Were any of the birthers sued for slander? I don't think so.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

True. Because Obama was and is a public figure, making things less so.

I have a problem with knowing falsity. I have a bigger problem is knowing falsity causes harm. And I have an even bigger problem if there is nothing that can be done about knowing falsity that causes harm.

But think of how many people actually believe that the President is Kenyan. Think that anything can actually cause harm from it? I do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

Just curious, lawrocket: If you were in a similar situation - some stalker woman decides she wants your wife to leave you, so she starts rumors about you being gay, even gets your wife's mother to tell her that you're gay. Would you sue the woman for slander?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Just curious, lawrocket: If you were in a similar situation - some stalker woman decides she wants your wife to leave you, so she starts rumors about you being gay, even gets your wife's mother to tell her that you're gay. Would you sue the woman for slander?

I would sue my mother and (ex)wife for being stupid.

[lawrocket 3]

Depends on the effect. If my lovely wife simply laughed it off, then there would be no damage from it.

That's why I'm looking at this in this way. This guy's relationship was apparently actually harmed. And the court stated that even if harm can be shown as a matter of FACT, as a matter of LAW they say no harm exists.

I think the court here went too far, straying from whether or not harm exists and finding that, to them, no harm SHOULD exist.

We can go further. Let's say somebody has a gripe with Inbred Jed. That person tells some rather nefarious folks a deliberate lie that Inbred Jed is dating a black man. Acting on that knowledge, these other characters go out and kick the shit out of the guy because he's both gay and dating a black man.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being gay, right? Nor anything wrong with dating a black person. Well, not to everyone. And while the perpetrators of the act should no doubt suffer the consequences, what about the person who precipitated it? "Well, there is nothing defamatory about what was said, because no reasonable person would be bothered by it."

Problem - we are in a world of unreasonable people. I'm not saying that a person should be banned from speaking these words. Speak your mind. do what you want, and no prior restraint on it should occur.

But if someone suffers harm - some real, cognizable harm from it - shouldn't that person be allowed to have the opportunity to be made whole from the person who put the events in motion?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Depends on the effect. If my lovely wife simply laughed it off, then there would be no damage from it.

And what if your wife divorced you over it? Would you then sue the other woman?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

We can go further. Let's say somebody has a gripe with Inbred Jed. That person tells some rather nefarious folks a deliberate lie that Inbred Jed is dating a black man. Acting on that knowledge, these other characters go out and kick the shit out of the guy because he's both gay and dating a black man.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being gay, right? Nor anything wrong with dating a black person. Well, not to everyone. And while the perpetrators of the act should no doubt suffer the consequences, what about the person who precipitated it? "Well, there is nothing defamatory about what was said, because no reasonable person would be bothered by it."

Suppose the person said Inbred Jed likes the Los Angeles Lakers, and this wasn't true, but these anti-Lakers people beat the shit out of Jed over it. Should the person be sued for slander for saying that Jed likes the Lakers?