For those of you eagerly waiting for a blogger like me to be financially ruined in a libel suit, all I can say is, this ain’t England:
The libel laws of England and Wales are notorious. Libel cases cost little to bring — you can make a no-win-no-fee arrangement with your lawyer — but a lot to defend. According to a recent report, the average cost of defending a libel case in England and Wales is 140 times greater than it is in most of the rest of Europe.
Moreover, English libel law favors the claimant — the person who says he or she has been defamed — in several ways. For one, the range of defenses is more limited than in other jurisdictions. For another, in English libel cases, the burden of proof is effectively on the defendant. In other words, the defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove it is true.
[…] The problem the libel laws create is not so much that critical stories can’t be written, but that they won’t be. As the conversations I had this summer show, for many journalists and their employers the potential for a libel case is a powerful deterrent to criticism: the pieces aren’t worth the hassle.
Yup, if you long for our libel laws to be used to slap down a few of us meddlesome bloggers, that’s exactly the type of journalistic climate of fear you obviously hope to create. But unfortunately for you, here in the U.S., we have something called the First Amendment. So eat me.
Goldy …
Everything you say here is ALSO applicable to tort reform. Leaving aside the Repricans goofy misuse of this as a cost savings device, abuse of malpractice is a very real problem and one that could easily be solved.
SJ–
You are becoming dumber daily.
Equating libel with Medical Malpractice???
What a moron.
Goldy, we do have laws where libel claims must meet a very high standard to be successful. We also have moral standards that used to come into play….however are being eroded daily.
The only way to fight someone who continues to borderline libel people and spread falsehoods is to bring their family and whatever into play so there are consequences.
If you make someone look bad using innuendo and half-truths and when proven wrong, don’t publicly correct the record loud & clear…would you be angry if someone went after your parents, siblings or kids in retaliation?? Free Speech…right? It CUTS both ways.
And SJ…you are a dumbass.
Tort Reform is more about Defensive Medicine which impacts Health Care costs by 7% or more…than the 2% in Legal Fees, Judgments & Insurance costs.
Keep screaming with your fingers in your ears.
Protecting Ambulance-chasers in this economy is a losing proposition….you dumbass.
Like you have any money to pay on the off-chance someone did win a judgement against you. You’re safe there Goldy.
Mark1–
If someone started making up stuff about Goldy’s daughter and spreading it around like he sometimes does, do you think Goldy would be upset??
Or should Goldy say “Kudo’s ..you just ate me!”
Thanks for the 1st Amendment…you can attack my daughter all you want.
Yeah Right.
The 1st Amendment requires integrity.
Mr C
If you could learn to post without decorating your comments with words like dumbass, I think you might get more respect.
In re tort reform and defensive medicine, I agree with you, wioth one exception. Defensive medicine is the result of a lot more tha just malpractice. There has bgeen a proliferation of regulation from gov, from insurance companies, from watch dog groups all of which result in over priced care. Even if we set the bar on malpractice VERY high, these other things would still be there.
As for tort reform, I think the collb between attorneys and liberals oin this issue is bad for the liberal cause. To argue that malpractice suits improve medical care is dubious. Docs have layers of legal protection and layers of supervision. The persoanl costs of a malpractice suit pale in comparison to the professional problems of crossing th4e ssorted regulators.
The comparision with libel law ought to ATTRACT you if you could raise your trousers to cover the ever present Reprican erection. I am certain that if we were to lower the bars for libgel, the trial lawyers would be very happy yto find moneyed targets to sue. Of course the effect would be to harm free speech just as malpractice law .. causes bad medical practice.
We should have tort reform in medicine simoply because it does NOT do a good jigb of protecting patients and it does cost a lot of money .. even 2% is not hay!
Tell you what boobela, maybe you need to two persona ..one for the foul mouthed, racist mad dog radical repubican and one when you actually want to discuss a real issue?
We should simply adopt a loser pay system: bring a lawsuit and lose, and you pick up the tab.
Hey, you pays your dollar and you takes your chances!
PI–
I think that should be a part of any real reform…loser pays.
SJ–
I don’t mind having reasoned discussions with you but you seem kind of psychotic.
Let me give you an example..
You tell me I would get more respect if I didn’t use the term dumbass in describing you…fine.
But have you read your own nasty as comments recently? Not very decent and civil SJ. Tell you what, let’s start a decent dialogue, at least with each other…starting now.
Deal?
@7
loser pays is the rule in England. If it was implemented in the USA, it would most frequently be used to sock corporations and insurers who falsely deny simple claims where they are liable. Basically in every lawsuit where a person is injured, the responsible party lies, lies, lies. And in the end they lose. After making sure they ran up huge legal costs for the meritorious plaintiff. Then because the meritorious plaintiff usu. can’t get the legal bill paid by the wrongdoing corporation or insurer, they will have made the one third contingent fee deal with the trial lawyer…because otherwise they won’t be able to win their suit.
So mr. cynical, be ready to get what you wish for. and those who wish to see the end of the one third contingent fee the two way loser pays system is a way to do it, but be warned, your insurance rates will go up because today wrongdoer’s esape responsibility for their unmeritorious defenses and frivolous defenses.
Funny thing though, every time liberals propose a law that also imposes liability for attorneys fees, as in civil rights and discrimination cases, it’s the conservatives who go oh no, we can’t have loser pays there! And it’s the conservative judges who whack down the loser pays provisions of those statutes every chance they get. Scalia has an opinion saying if you win your civil rights suit and you had to pay an expert you can’t recover that cost. He’s always attacking loser pays. To insurlate corporate and insurer wrongdoers, natch, it’s nothing about principle or free markets or anything like that!
@7 certainly .. as long as you do not thik that means I will not comment on remarks you make outside of our dialog.
If you want a topic, how about this …
What would it take for a rationalist to run as a Republican today?
to Mr. C
I think the radicalization of the Republican party is hurting our country because moderates now have no place to go but the dems.
Suppose that a person rejects the idea that a first trimester embryo is a person, accepts global warming, conders ID and creationism heresies against fact, regards GWB as a great failure and Chaney as a traiter, accepts the need for universal healthcare, believes in charter schools, believes in scholarships for the most able, and accepts the idea that America should be a land of opportunity for all … wnated to run for Congress or Governor. Could she doe to under the Rep banner?
first amendmant? like when conservatives spoke up at health forums and got criticized, by, ironies of ironies, the fucking first amendmant protecting media. goldstein, for gods sake just go away.
by the way golstien, you’re “eat me” quote shows lot of class. i suppose you picked that up when you went on fox, i’m sure you’re parents didnt raise you to be a pig.
@12: Woman of truth:
You talking about class is like a pig talking about the high quality of slop it eats.
As they say in England, “RAH-ther.”