With the fall out of planned parenthood violence and vandalism in recent weeks, coupled with Fiorina and her think tank I’ve been pouring over the legalities, supreme court cases and decisions. Is she culpable legally? We know she is morally, having had the information the planned parenthood videos were a lie and illegally obtained, does she hold legal responsibility for the violence? The defamation and fraudulent statements made of planned parenthood with clear intent of harming the institution…. And she continues to defend the statements..
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one’s occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error
1975, in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., the Supreme Court of California held that a radio station could be held liable for its broadcast, which inspired two listeners to drive recklessly toward an announced location, killing another driver in the process.112 The plaintiff in Weirum brought a wrongful death action against a radio station for its promotion that urged people to drive to the lo[*PG173]cation of a disc jockey to receive a prize.113 Two listeners, incited to reach the disc jockey, drove recklessly toward his location and in the process drove another vehicle off the road, killing the driver.114 The Supreme Court of California affirmed the jury’s determination that the defendant radio station was liable under a negligence theory for the “foreseeable results of a broadcast which created an undue risk of harm . . . .”115
Weirum hardly made mention of the First Amendment except to note that it does not erect a barrier to liability.116 Later cases, however, have interpreted Weirum to be a case of “true” incitement, in harmony with Brandenburg. 117 This interpretation highlights the fact that the disc jockey’s directives were in close temporal proximity to the reckless driving that caused decedent’s death.118 In addition, because the disc jockey issued repeated live exhortations to listeners urging them to act in an inherently dangerous manner, the foreseeability of such action on the part of listeners was high.119
And then Charles Manson, was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes committed by fellow conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy’s objective.
I believe she is culpable, and I for one want her behind bars. Any thoughts are appreciated.