KFC 'Kick Out' Little Girl, Victoria Wilcher, Disfigured In Savage Pit Bull Attack

So this could possibly be the grandmother saying pay for the medical care or I am going to make up a spurious story that makes you look bad even if its not true - and KFC coughed up.

sphinx wrote:So this could possibly be the grandmother saying pay for the medical care or I am going to make up a spurious story that makes you look bad even if its not true - and KFC coughed up.

Could be. Lucky she only wants medical costs, eh?

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:So this could possibly be the grandmother saying pay for the medical care or I am going to make up a spurious story that makes you look bad even if its not true - and KFC coughed up.

Could be.  Lucky she only wants medical costs, eh?

So regardless, this is OK with you ?

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:So this could possibly be the grandmother saying pay for the medical care or I am going to make up a spurious story that makes you look bad even if its not true - and KFC coughed up.

Could be.  Lucky she only wants medical costs, eh?

No not lucky at all.

Isn't libel an offence as well?

Or do you think this is a "victimless" crime?

Stephenmarra wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Could be.  Lucky she only wants medical costs, eh?

So regardless, this is OK with you ?

No opinion. It is what it is.

We observe a lot of things. Judgement is for another book.

Original Quill wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:
So regardless, this is OK with you ?

No opinion.  It is whc'est la vieat it is.

We observe a lot of things.  Judgement is for another book.

OK, So, c'est la vie, but is that really an answer ??

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Could be.  Lucky she only wants medical costs, eh?

No not lucky at all.

Isn't libel an offence as well?

Or do you think this is a "victimless" crime?

Well, it's not a criminal matter at all in the US.  The First Amendment protects free speech, free association and other kinds of communicative acts.  The Fifth Amendment protects right to due process of law and access to courts.  According to Article Six, the US Constitution is the "highest law in the land" and so it can trump any other form of legal matter, including libel.  That's what they mean when they say 'it's unconstitutional.'

But take a look at the law of defamation.  A statement is defamatory generally if it is a false statement of fact that is negligently or intentionally communicated or published to a third party, and that causes injury or damage to the subject of the statement.  Libel and slander are different: Libel is written and slander is oral.

Something is defamation if it tends to hold the plaintiff (the subject of the statement, who is bringing the lawsuit) up to scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, or contempt, in the mind of any considerable and respectable segment of the community.  That's a lot.  You not only have to avoid the constitutional pitfalls, but you must prove the standards of the community...and you have got to have an excellent reputation yourself--one that does not put you back into scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, or contempt once again.

Defamation must be of a factual nature, and not opinion.  For example, of you say 'He is ridiculous' you are expressing an opinion and it is not defamatory.   People have an absolute right to express whatever opinions they like or dislike about other people.  May be impolite, but not actionable.

Proven damages are essential unless the defamation goes to (1) a serious, notorious, or immoral crime, (2) claims of an infectious or terrible disease, or (3) claims that one is is incompetent in his job, trade, or profession.  Otherwise, one has to prove lost wages or some kind of monetary or value loss.

The statement must be to a third party and not directly to you personally.  In other words, I can accuse you of fraud to your face, I just can't falsely state that you committed fraud to another person.

Most of all, the statement must be false.  You can allege invasion of privacy, but when it comes to defamation one has a definite privilege to speak the truth.

Finally, there is a different standard in the US for a private individual and what is called a public figure.  New York Times v. Sullivan.  A public person--say, a movie star or a politician--must overcome a higher standard simply because speech about public things is more protected.  Here, the US differs from the UK...the First Amendment protects 'talking about' public things.  But, newspapers must have actually given a person a chance to deny--the so-called absent malice standard.

Looking at this factual pattern, first thing obvious to me is no one said anything of a defamatory nature from KFC.  This isn't even a speech case.  The claim would be only in the action of paying of the $30,000.  And of course, KFC will argue in its defense that protecting itself legally is protected activity under their due process of law rights.  So that's two defenses: (a) an equivocal act and (b) constitutional protection.

Third defense: truth.  Did someone kick the little girl out?  Actually, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that it was untrue.

Fourth defense: who was the statement directed at?  Not talking first party/third party here; which employee was the alleged injured party?  After all, we are not talking about speech, as noted.  So, who was defamed.  Who even has standing to sue?  Simply put, who was it about?  This is compounded by the fact that you are not even sure it is a defamatory action...again, it isn't even speech, which can be directed at someone, about someone.

Fifth defense: who made the false statement.  A defamation must be published; what is the action of publication here?  Are we talking about KFC?  Or someone else? Another way of asking this is, who would you sue?  KFC has a constitutional right to respond, in the press or otherwise...so who first went public?  If the employees are going to sue the little girl, and take the $30,000 that could be used for medical expenses, they will simply have proven that they are insensitive assholes (which goes to the issue of truth or injury to reputation).  Who made this public such that there is a reputational injury at all.

I think the employees have met their burden of proving damages.  The issue is about their competence at work.

Well, that's enough for now.  There's more, but this isn't a constitutional or tort law class.

Stephenmarra wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No opinion.  It is whc'est la vieat it is.

We observe a lot of things.  Judgement is for another book.

OK, So, c'est la vie, but is that really an answer ??

Steph, you seem to be at great pains to put words in my mouth--words that are simply not there.

I'm more a man of action. I like to get to the bottom of things. What is your point?

OK Quim, what exactly are you asking ?
As a man of action that has "no opinion" Sorry I'm confused  ?

Stephenmarra wrote:OK Quim, what exactly are you asking ?
As a man of action that has "no opinion" Sorry I'm confused  ?

I am asking for your point. I thought I made that quite clear.

Sorry but why should I reply to  someone with no opinion ?

Stephenmarra wrote:Sorry but why should I reply to  someone with no opinion ?

Probably a smart reply. Smarter than you think...keep quiet.

Original Quill wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:Sorry but why should I reply to  someone with no opinion ?

Probably a smart reply.  Smarter than you think...keep quiet.

Quim, you give me your opinion and I'll consider whether it's worth my time to give you mine.
That's how forums work ant it ?

Shhhh, Steph...

Original Quill wrote:Shhhh, Steph...

No problem Quim, if you don't have an opinion, what the fuck are you doing on this thread ?

Uh this is an opinion forum for the expression of opinions and not a court of law where everything is restricted to the facts.

sphinx wrote:Uh this is an opinion forum for the expression of opinions and not a court of law where everything is restricted to the facts.

What is your point, sphinx?  What is an "opinion forum" and how does that differ from an opinion about the law?  Does one always have to have an opinion that is against the law?  Can one have an opinion enlightened by the law?  Can one have an opinion about how the law operates?  

How about medicine...do we have to have an opinion uninformed by medical research because this is not a hospital?  How about the military...do we have to have an opinion uninformed by military tactics?  After all, this is not a war room.  How about politics...do we have to have an opinion uninformed by political events around the world.  After all, this is not a parliamentary chamber.

And where are the non-opinion forums found?  Does any opinion qualify?  Can you have a stupid opinion and still qualify?  What is the difference between an uninformed opinion and a stupid opinion?

I think you can see how totally stupid you sound when your ideas on "opinion" and posting are tested.  So why don't you say what's really on your mind?  I'll give you that opportunity.  I mean...I'm guessing you are not the champion of ignorant posts.  You are upset about something. Let's hear it.

Then again...maybe I'm wrong.  Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:Uh this is an opinion forum for the expression of opinions and not a court of law where everything is restricted to the facts.

What is your point, sphinx?  What is an "opinion forum" and how does that differ from an opinion about the law?  Does one always have to have an opinion that is against the law?  Can one have an opinion enlightened by the law?  Can one have an opinion about how the law operates?  

How about medicine...do we have to have an opinion uninformed by medical research because this is not a hospital?  How about the military...do we have to have an opinion uninformed by military tactics?  After all, this is not a war room.  How about politics...do we have to have an opinion uninformed by political events around the world.  After all, this is not a parliamentary chamber.

And where are the non-opinion forums found?  Does any opinion qualify?  Can you have a stupid opinion and still qualify?  What is the difference between an uninformed opinion and a stupid opinion?

I think you can see how totally stupid you sound when your ideas on "opinion" and posting are tested.  So why don't you say what's really on your mind?  I'll give you that opportunity.  I mean...I'm guessing you are not the champion of ignorant posts.  You are upset about something.  Let's hear it.

Then again...maybe I'm wrong.  Lol.

My point is that you seem to be saying we or at least you cannot have an opinion on whether KFC are covering up or the grandmother scamming because it has not actually gone to court and been properly examined.

For the record I think if KFC are covering up then they are slime bags.

If the grandmother is scamming she is even worse than a slime bag.