Comments on: Libel battle won, but war remains lost

By: Newshound

Newshound — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:54:21 +0000

Dan -You may be able to read National Law Journal in the law library at Moakley Court, Harvard, etc.

By: Tuesday Evening Edition 10/13/09 « Coney Media

Tuesday Evening Edition 10/13/09 « Coney Media — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:02:33 +0000

[...] 13, 2009 · Leave a Comment TOXIC DECISION: A critical First Amendment case is won, but the battle’s not over. A federal appeals court judge overlooked Times v. Sullivan and allowed a libel case to proceed [...]

By: lkcape

lkcape — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:48:11 +0000

Your problem is not with the Court, Dan, it is a) with 200+ years of case law defining due process and b) with the laws of the State of Massachusetts.

The Appeals Court merely said that it would not stand in the shoes of the MA Supreme Judicial Court as the first reviewer of the constitutionality of a MA law and b) the appellants did not provide compelling LEGAL reason for the Court NOT to let the MA SJC rule first.

Both contentions are eminently reasonable, and legally quite sound.

I notice that the appellants did not pursue the matter to a higher court. Might one ask why?

Your efforts, Dan, should not be to flog this dead horse, but rather to get the legislature to revise the out-dated law.

As it stands now, your are right. End of case!

Why?

Because there IS NO case to be had in this litigation, and unless the trier of fact found malice, there never would be one.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:53:39 +0000

Larz: I wish I could read the National Law Journal story, but there’s no way a jury can overrule a decision by the appeals court. It boils down to this:

1. Appeals court says if you find Staples acted with malice, then you may also find that Staples libeled Noonan.

2. Jury finds there was no malice. End of case.

3. Appeals court’s precedent regarding malice remains intact.

By: LFNeilson

LFNeilson — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:53:29 +0000

So, do I have this right? Judge T. allowed the suit to proceed (the bad news). Then the jury found for the defendant, Staples (the good news). But this decision has not overturned Judge T’s ruling that truth is no reason to disallow a libel suit?