Re: Rumor Control

[thansen@moscow.com]

Visionaires -

This is how I understand it.  Correct me if I am wrong.

A person is considered civilly libel for slander if that person's untrue 
comments cause an undue financial burden on the subject of the slander.

In the restaurant case:  If Bucer's can prove that those comments made by Mr. 
London resulted in lost revenue to Bucer's.

Of course, I can always "road test" my theory by calling Bucer's over the phone 
and tell them that I was going to reserve their restaurant for a private party 
(to the tune of about $3,000 to $5,000), but changed my mind because Bill 
London said that Bucer's refuses to serve customers simply because of their 
sexual preference.  

Eager to learn more,

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> Lucy wrote:  
> 
> "So...if I understand you correctly, you don't believe that Mr. London's
> comment was slander?"
> 
> That's correct.  Look up slander.  Libel, of course, is another case
enti> rely, but I don't think Bill's question was that either.
> 
> And she adds:
> 
> "Do you think Bucer's runs by itself? It's owned by people with names.
It> 's not an impersonal vending machine that drops cups in to a slot.  Hey
A> untie...you might feel more sympathetic if it was your establishment."
> 
> You misjudge me, Lucy.  If there's no foundation to this rumor, then I
wi> ll be very sympathetic.  It's a nasty story, but it's also one I've
heard>  before.  A variation on it was circulating last spring.  I would be
exce> edingly happy if it could be retired with certainty.  If untrue, it's
ver> y unfair to Bucer's; if true, it's disturbing to people like me.
> 
> Joan/Auntie E  Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download :
http:> //explorer.msn.com
> 



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/