The way I see it there are three possible outcomes;
1 - She has no case and it doesn't even make it as far as formal proceedings.
2 - She takes the case to court at huge expense to the taxpayer, causes even more negative publicity and still loses.
3 - My friend is screwed.
Could someone please advise me on the most likely outcome? Preferably someone with legal experience, though educated guesses are welcome.Legal Advice? Defamantion/Libel? Help!?
The threat of proceedings is usually more effective that than the proceedings themselves.
For all the reasons set out in the excellent answers above, and several more besides, Ms Clark will undoubtedly been advised that she has absolutely no case whatsoever by reason of the posting of the video alone.
Anyone foolish enough to offer commentary on it suggesting she was drunk/mentally incapable may be more open to attack on the basis that this could be (note the conditional tense) libellous.Legal Advice? Defamantion/Libel? Help!?
Thanks for all your help everyone, but the video has now been removed by youtube. I guess I'll have to wait and see if that is the end of it or just the beginning.
Report Abuse
These days anyone can sue anyone for anything, However, most of the time it is termed Frivolous lawsuits. she may have a case though because your friend did not get permission from her to post it.
Best advice, Contact an Attorney.
Most Attorneys have free consultations.
Good Luck
She was in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy...if she was video taped she was video taped...it was her own fault for being drunk and stupid in a bar.
she has no case....doesn't mean she won't take it to civil court, and it will get heard no matter what - but it isn't like it will be on the evening news so the whole ';negative publicity'; thing isn't an outcome...
if she was at a private home - then she'd have grounds to sue.
Next time, try an intervention with a professional and her close friends, instead of shock therapy...
The posting of the video on You Tube is unlikely to yield any problems for your friend. Tell him / her to keep their head down and say nothing. She is bluffing and probably VERY embarrassed. It will all simmer down.
You tube may get a letter from her solicitor but I doubt if she has a case. I see no claims on the site as to her behaviour and the video is what it is. My defence would be that it is totally what happened. To defame someone one must allege some type of untruth that damages the reputation of the claimant. To coin a VERY old phrase “the camera never lies”.
I would wait it out. It is unlikely that you or your friend can influence the outcome so no point in getting worried about something over which you have no control.
xxFJ
Pretty sure it's not slander (either defamation or libel) the textbook definition of which starts with a false statement .....
Although you can slander someone in a film (Youssopof -v- MGM) it doesn't quite fit the definition if you publish someone else's words/statement about themselves or a pictorial equivalent.
That said there is always breach of privacy (now an actionable civil wrong in some circumstances ) or breach of copyright.A battle of nerves perhaps ?
Well, your friend posted an image of her without her permission, he's not a member of the press , and the reason you gave means he can't plead that he was absent of malice.
He MIGHT be able to plead that, as an MP, she has reduced expectations of privacy, but it's a longshot.
I'd say # 3 is looking pretty good as an outcome.
It wouldn't have worked anyways. You can't shame a drunk into getting treatment - they have to decide on their own and for their own reasons that they have a problem they have to fix for treatment to be effective.
And, if the award is big enough and he has other debt over $1,000, she may be able to petition him into bankruptcy. He could head off any really punitive action by her if he makes it a practice to spread the word on whatever she's doing, though - it won't look good if a politician goes after one of her constituents.
His best hope is to take the video down, apologize publicly and hope that she'll accept that.
Hi Marc,
English law being rather different to US law to which Scott makes reference I would see your case as quite hopeful.
Certainly as slander or libel there is no case to answer as the portrayal is indisputably true.
Defamation of character? Maybe, but given her record I don't think she'd get very far in court.
It seems that the only legal point that she might have is breach of copyright. If she does this then admit it, pay the fine (max fifty pounds if I remember correctly) and then sell the whole story to a newspaper at a handsome profit.
Seems like you're on to a good thing here.
Blessed be.
Karma Singh
No comments:
Post a Comment