Deputy dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg, is this you?
>
> Leagle Eagel. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > former va cop Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > She is in the public eye therefore subject to
> > > opinions. She put herself there. Falwell v.
> > Flynt
> > > laid this out. Read the majority SCOTUS
> > opinion.
> > > If that's too hard, see the movie The People
> vs
> > > Larry Flynt.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_vs._Larry_
>
> >
> > > Flynt
> > >
> >
> > I don't know if Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
> would
> > apply here. I'd look at New York Times Co. v.
> > Sullivan.
> >
> > The biggest question raised here is if the
> untrue
> > statements made about Kincaid rise to the
> "actual
> > malice" standard, which is necessary because
> she's
> > a public figure.
> >
>
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actu
>
> > al-malice-and-negligence
> >
> > Another consideration is that § 18.2-417
> > specifically says
Any person who
> shall
> > falsely utter and speak, or falsely write and
> > publish, of and concerning any female of chaste
> > character, any words derogatory of such
> female's
> > character for virtue and chastity, or imputing
> to
> > such female acts not virtuous and chaste...
> shall
> > be guilty of a Class 3
> >
> misdemeanor.
http://leg1.state.va.us/c
>
> > gi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-417
> >
> > Now, that's
criminal libel, not civil
> > defamation, and although a class 3 misdemeanor
> is
> > punishable only by a $500 fine, it's still a)
> more
> > than the libelist can afford, and b) a criminal
> > offense, which will show up on any background
> > employment check.
> >
> > That'd be fun thing to have to explain in a job
> > interview, I think.
What would be fun is for a prosecutor to have to prove a woman "is of chaste character." Now that would make for some entertaining defense argument!