🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 May 1994 12:02:02 PST, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) said:

> Seriously, though, doesn't malicious intent need to be proven?  If this man
> stated opinions and rumors as facts, then yes, maybe he should be liable.  If
> it can be shown that he has a vendetta against the company, or if it can be
> shown that he profitted from the stock's decline, then again, they *may* have
> a case.

There was a recent libel case against the {New York Times} that
appeared in the {Wall Street Journal} some weeks back concerning a
book review that appeared in the former publication.  The {Times} won
so thoroughly and surprisingly that the ruling, if it stands, will
practically eliminate libel cases against any kind of published
criticism.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see this case thrown out
later on.
-- 
Robert L. McMillin  | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com

* Write to clipper.petition@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
* Write to cantwell@eff.org supporting HR 3627.
* Write leahy@eff.org and demand the Clinton administration explain IN
  THE SENATE why it thinks U.S. citizens shouldn't have any digital privacy.
* This is a shareware .signature  -- please pass it on!