03-12-2004 10:13									#91
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Who knows what is right and wrong.

America = right

UN = wrong

	03-12-2004 10:15									#92
	Suffering from ads?

Or, alternatively...

Standing up to Saddam Hussein's regime = right

Standing up for Saddam Hussein's regime = wrong

Pretty basic stuff, really...

	03-12-2004 10:17									#93
	Got spare money?

If someone is accused of a crime then it is up to the accuser to prove the accusation. The onus on proving the documents true is not on Galloway, but rather the newspaper.

It is incorrect to say the documents have not been proven false. Instead, the documents have not been proven true.

	03-12-2004 10:19									#94
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: If someone is accused of a crime then it is up to the accuser to prove the accusation. The onus on proving the documents true is not on Galloway, but rather the newspaper.

But isn't the newspaper accused of the crime of libel, making Galloway the accuser and thus having to prove the accusation?



(though the know the Brits, for some reason, do it the other way... .interesting factoid, if a British plaintiff who won under libel laws in Britain over an American defendant, tried to get the money judgment enforced in the US, the US court would throw it out as it violates public policy of 1st Amendment freedoms.... sorry I'm studying for my Conflicts of Law final ).

	03-12-2004 10:29									#95
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But isn't the newspaper accused of the crime of libel, making Galloway the accuser and thus having to prove the accusation?

You're the legal begal, you tell me.

In Britain and Canada, if a defendent chooses the truth defence then it is up to the defendent to prove that what they printed was true, or that their belief that it was true was a reasonable belief.

	03-12-2004 10:32									#96
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara More importantly, who cares? So Iraq was getting more money than they were supposed to get. What did they do with it? They certainly didn't buy WMDs.

"sports equipment."

	03-12-2004 10:35									#97
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Or, alternatively... Standing up to Saddam Hussein's regime = right Standing up for Saddam Hussein's regime = wrong Pretty basic stuff, really...

Exactly.

Thus, Reagan was an evil bastard.

	03-12-2004 10:36									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Thus, Reagan was an evil bastard.

Yes. You're in distinguished company.

	03-12-2004 10:37									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Harry Tuttle Wow, you're a trusting sole

your sole reason for having a sole on the bottom of you're shoes has nothing to do with a soul.

	03-12-2004 10:37									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Yes. You're in distinguished company.

Do you think Bush should invade North Korea?

	03-12-2004 10:38									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'd like Boshko to keep his house. So no.

	03-12-2004 10:39									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Liberal doublespeak. Why are you a love slave to Kim Jung Il?

	03-12-2004 10:42									#103
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Do you think Bush should invade North Korea?

Of course.

	03-12-2004 11:30									#104
	Remove this text

I'm sure we can take them with the negative 50 million troops we'll have when Bush stops standing up for the other various dictatorial regimes in the world.

	03-12-2004 11:39									#105
	Suffering from ads?

quote: In Britain and Canada, if a defendent chooses the truth defence then it is up to the defendent to prove that what they printed was true, or that their belief that it was true was a reasonable belief.

Yeah, I realize that. We were pointing out that isn't like that in the US, and we believe our system is more conducive to free speech. In the US, the plaintiff always has to satisfy his burden of production first. He's gotta show that it was malicious or false enough so that the trial can go forward. When the trial starts, the plaintiff is the one who has to show that the defendant's writing was deliberately false and/or malicious in order to win the case.

Its for that reason the US won't enforce British libel judgments. Making the defendant have the burden of proof violates due process in our system.

	03-12-2004 11:47									#106
	Tired of ads?

The U.S. system is flawed. Let's say I have never taken a bribe, but a newspaper says I have. How do I prove I have not done something? It's impossible.

In the American system, Galloway would have to prove that the Telegraph's documents are false.

The American system is more conducive to libel.

	03-12-2004 11:54									#107
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Let's say I have never taken a bribe, but a newspaper says I have. How do I prove I have not done something? It's impossible.

Not so. You have to prove that the facts the newspaper has gotten to make that assertion are incorrect and they didn't check it out (and if you are a public person, you have to prove malice).

And in order for a newspaper to prove what it has printed is true (ie, having the burden of proof), wouldn't it have to reveal its sources? Wouldn't that create a chilling effect on the press?

quote: The American system is more conducive to libel.

It's more conducive to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, it is. It forces the accuser to prove his claim, rather than the accused having to disprove the claim.

Frankly I'll take the US system. And Britain seems to have more tabloids as major news sources, which are more likely than non-tabloid news services to make stuff up about people .