Candace Owens says she will force Brigitte Macron to undergo INDEPENDENT medical exam to prove she's female.

Jarod said:
Citation? I do not believe so. Is this in State or Federal Court?

I think they only have to prove.

1. The statement was false.
2. The statement caused damage.
Click to expand...

you have no citation. google public figure and "actual malice"

and thank me when you are done reading
 
Yakuda said:
She doesnt have to do anything and doubt shes trying to get money of out candace. i suspect shes just trying to shut her up but someone as crazed as candace seems to be wont go away so ignoring her is the best tactic. Only a psycho would would say they are going to force macron to get an exam
Click to expand...
uranidiot. Brigitte will indeed have to prove her claim. She is suing candy and must show candy is lying.
 
Yakuda said:
Its not semantics. its the only thing that matters. Owens has no compelling reason to force or require macron to submit to an examine. Macrons only error was reacting to that crackhead owens.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I would not care if some idiot in France said my wife was once a man. I simply could not care any less what some idiot like that may think. I cannot believe that she would submit to some genetic testing to prove someone that she was a woman "all the time"... And I thought women can have y chromosomes nowadays anyway. What would two X chromosomes prove in today's world where men can get pregnant and boys need tampons in Wisconsin restrooms?
 
Jarod said:
Citation? I do not believe so. Is this in State or Federal Court?

I think they only have to prove.

1. The statement was false.
2. The statement caused damage.
Click to expand...
My citation would start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Associated Press v. Walker

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.


Now You?
 
zymurgy said:
My citation would start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Associated Press v. Walker

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.


Now You?
Click to expand...
In what court is the Owen’s case.

Different laws in different jurisdictions.
 
Jarod said:
In what court is the Owen’s case.

Different laws in different situations.
Click to expand...
it will be in a United States Civil Court

the 1st amendment is incorporated. All states will need to abide by the laws on actual malice for public figures. So no matter the state that is ultimately hearing it.....

I thought you knew the law?
 
zymurgy said:
My citation would start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts

Associated Press v. Walker

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.


Now You?
Click to expand...
I looked it up, the case is filed in Delaware.

In Delaware for Defamation Macron must prove….

Delaware Superior Court, Delaware defamation law applies.


Here are the elements Macron must prove:



A False and Defamatory Statement of Fact

The defendant published a statement purporting to be fact, not opinion.

The statement must be false.

It must be defamatory, meaning it harms reputation by lowering the person in the estimation of the community or deterring others from associating with them.

No element requiring that Owen’s had to know the statement was fact.


Try to be more informed when you post.
 
zymurgy said:
it will be in a United States Civil Court

the 1st amendment is incorporated. All states will need to abide by the laws on actual malice for public figures. So no matter the state that is ultimately hearing it.....

I thought you knew the law?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as “United States Civil Court”.

I never said they did not require actual malice. I said there is no requirement that they prove Owen’s believed it to be true.
 
Jarod said:
I looked it up, the case is filed in Delaware.

In Delaware for Defamation Macron must prove….

Delaware Superior Court, Delaware defamation law applies.


Here are the elements Macron must prove:



A False and Defamatory Statement of Fact

The defendant published a statement purporting to be fact, not opinion.

The statement must be false.

It must be defamatory, meaning it harms reputation by lowering the person in the estimation of the community or deterring others from associating with them.

No element requiring that Owen’s had to know the statement was fact.


Try to be more informed when you post.
Click to expand...


the New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice rule is federal constitutional law under the First Amendment. That means it applies in all states, including Delaware, whether the defamation case is in state civil court or federal court.


Here’s how it works in Delaware:



1. Binding on Delaware Courts​


  • The U.S. Supreme Court’s Sullivan standard is rooted in the First Amendment.
  • State courts (Delaware included) must apply it when a public official or public figure brings a defamation claim.
  • So if Brigitte Macron (a public figure) sued someone in Delaware, she would need to prove actual malice.


2. Delaware-Specific Applications​


Delaware courts have repeatedly acknowledged and applied the Sullivan/Gertz framework:


  • Kanaga v. Gannett Co., Inc. (Del. 1997)
    • Delaware Supreme Court applied New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Welch.
    • Confirmed that public officials/figures must show actual malice; private persons only negligence.
  • Delaware case law also reinforces that whether someone is a public or private figure is a threshold issue the court must decide.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah. I would not care if some idiot in France said my wife was once a man. I simply could not care any less what some idiot like that may think. I cannot believe that she would submit to some genetic testing to prove someone that she was a woman "all the time"... And I thought women can have y chromosomes nowadays anyway. What would two X chromosomes prove in today's world where men can get pregnant and boys need tampons in Wisconsin restrooms?
Click to expand...
I think she is heroic for filing this case against Owens, maybe it will make public figures think twice about spreading false information about public figures.
 
I never said actual malice was not required.

I said they do not have to prove Owens had to know the truth of the defamatory statement.
 
zymurgy said:
derp derp

of course she has a compelling reason. she is being sued for defamation. The lawyer understand she will have to do certain things, even though you are too fucking stupid to follow along

2 things must be proven

1 - it is false
2 - she knows it is false
Click to expand...
Nope, 2 things need to be proven:

1. The statement was false.
2. There is actual malice on Owen’s side.


Nothing to requiring Macron to prove Owens knew it was false.
 
Jarod said:
so I did not say she would not need to prove malice.

Link me up!
Click to expand...
you asked for a citation - and I gave it.

you blathered on about states vs federal courts - showing a complete ignorance on basic things like the incorporation of the bill of rights.

stop pretending dude. it is pathetic
 
zymurgy said:
false. she will also need to demonstrate actual malice.

  • Actual Malice: For public figures, the plaintiff must prove the defendant made the statement with "actual malice," meaning they knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Click to expand...
So they knew it was false OR acted with reckless disregard for the truth!!!

One or the other, not both!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top