For those needing the Florida Statues on Slander/Libel and Defamation please see my posts on the other thread. I posted sections cut from the florida statues government website along with links and you can look them up.
Please find me ONE that fits this case. Florida Law and generally across the nation there is alot of latitude in regards to this, TO PREVENT specifically freedom of speech. I will fight to the death for my freedoms I hope other good americans would do the same, even if it means protecting the same rights of known or suspected criminals. I hate that part but once we deny them their rights we deny ourselves our rights.
Libel and Slander are typically reserved for "print" and "broadcast" media, you can be sued for it without having to be an author or news caster etc BUT its difficult to prove and win! They also ALLLOW RETRACTION.
That said Casey unfortunatley is NOT the aurthor nor broadcaster of ANY print or broadcast media through which SHE has said a single thing about ANY ZFG. She meerly gave a witness statment to the police. She could be charged with filing a false report though. BUT the MEDIA and NEWS casters and BLOGGERS including many from here even, AFTER the police CLEARED this woman AND AFTER the police RELEASED the information as per the information ACT, TOOK ON the crusade to harrass and percecute this poor woman. I say she has a good claim against many of them before she has a claim against Casey.
I copied this from the previous thread from myself.... because I believe it is important:
Seriously she has two counts in this suit:
Count 1 Defamation
Count 2 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Outrage
I just cannot see them proving anything intentional against any specific person if she was meerly using "stolen" information for her fictional character and Defamation is extreemly hard to prove, it's not even spelled out clear in the Florida Statutes, typically used to protect people from claims made in the media, they even allow for a retraction. But Casey herself never made these claims in the media about any specific ZFG other than the one in particular one that stole her child.
It will not be as easy as everyone thinks.
That's not what our lawyers (family) say.
They remind me that slander and libel are NOT limited to print and broadcast media. In fact, I was once libeled in an article that was never released to the public. It was made available to the perusal of a few of the author's personal friends. After legal action was discussed, the article was destroyed, and the author apologized to me and admitted fault to everyone who read it. To "publish" it to "make public," which merely means to write or speak it.
The elements of slander/libel are that:1) It must be detrimental to reputation, hold one up to public ridicule, and/or result in loss, 2) The statement(s) must be provably untrue, and 3) The subject of the statement(s) must be alive.
KC stated that ZFG (the ONLY ZFG in the area) who had been at the Sawgrass was the kidnapper. That information was, as is usual LE procedure, released to the public. The bloggers and the media are not responsible for the content of criminal complaints. The merely report them. KC knew that the information would be made public. She knew, or should have known that there would be repercussions to one particular woman, having researched her on the Net. This was a cynical attempt to distract LE and wasted their time. Which worked, for a short time, as LE had to follow up on that.
In the meantime, the woman's name has become a household word, because of the original criminal complaint. The bloggers did not file the complaint. The media did not file the complaint. KC filed the complaint, in the full knowledged that it would defame someone else.
AFTER the complaint was out, she denied that the ZFG in the photo wasw HER ZFG. But, she ALSO said she feared identifying the REAL ZFG, lest Caylee be harmed. So, people think she reported the kidnapper, then got scared and retracted.
Needless to say people are confused. But, they DO remember that a ZFG (which limits us to one) who had visited Sawgrass (again, one) was involved. Otherwise, how would KC have the details, they reason?
If only ONE thing had not happened, the woman wouold have been left her privacy-- KC's pointing finger. The fact that she researched the woman BEFORE she filed the complaint adds to intent.
And, there are also some people who don't know that LE cleared the lady. Per the "reasonable man" test, the public is NOT responsible for knowing all of the details about the case. You are talking to the average man on the street.
We will see what we will see, of course. But, based on all the "technical advice" I am getting, I wouldn't put any money on ZFG losing the case.
BTW-- My private opinion is that the As will not let it get to trial. It will be settled.
Now-- which of you, if someone had deliberately filed a false criminal complaint against you and you children were being threatened would say, "Oh, that's OK, it's not his/her fault. I'll let it go"