kelpdiver 2 #26 June 4, 2012 QuoteDepends 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. the greatest effectiveness of "he's gay, you know" or "he got a hard-on when my daughter sat on his lap" is going to be with the new relationships where women are quite wary of danger or wasting their time. Unfortunately there, the damage is to a potential relationship that could have been weeks to wife, but cannot be established. I could see a defense attorney argue that if mere statements were enough to derail a marriage, it must already have been on thin ice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 June 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteDepends 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? Again, depends. I've never sued anyone before in my life. But depending on the circumstances I think I'd be upset. But I'm liking how you are bringing up examples of harmful things applying this court's ruling. There are, of course, issues of foreseeability. (i.e., instead of "Lakers" change it to "Raiders" and someone may think differently). It is, to me, the knowing falsity. Effects can differ. But I really don't know the answer to your question. What if it is a church pastor called gay? And he loses a significant number of his congregation, etc? There are so many of these that are fact centered. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
