|
|
Post by stoney on Jan 12, 2010 10:20:08 GMT -5
So if one states something that is true, then that's OK? And opinions are always true, so they're ok, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jan 12, 2010 11:56:05 GMT -5
As long as your opinions aren't stated in wanton disregard for the truth, I wouldn't worry.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Jan 12, 2010 12:02:07 GMT -5
2. I will take the bait. Why would a criminal prosecution not be appropriate? Penal Law s. 240.30 is fairly clear on what constitutes aggravated harassment. Even under the most narrow views of the statute, how can it not qualify as aggravated harassment? Under that standard, I'm having a hard time seeing how every incident of libel or slander wouldn't be prosecuted as aggravated harrassment. Even better, under that standard none of the regular defenses against libel or slander is usable. And that pretty much sounds like a textbook example of libel or slander, right down to the stated malice for a public figure, doesn't it? But they obviously are paying thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, for the prosecution. For a texbook defamation or slander case. If this was being handled as a civil matter the expense to taxpayers would be trivial. As a criminal matter the meter just keeps on ticking as time goes by. I totally agree. Which, yet again, sounds exactly like the definition of libel or slander. Given the D.A.'s flexible definition of what now constitutes aggravated harassment I'm somewhat chagrined that no charges were ever filed against Joseph Longo. Mr. McNamara was provided with clear evidence that Mr. Longo used both telephone calls and text messages to threaten violence against himself and his wife, clearly in an attempt to harass and annoy her, yet he refused to press criminal charges. I can only speculate, of course, but I think there's a good chance both Mr. and Mrs. Longo would still be alive today if Mr. McNamara had been using his current definition of "aggravated harassment" back in August and September. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jan 12, 2010 13:20:09 GMT -5
2. I will take the bait. Why would a criminal prosecution not be appropriate? Penal Law s. 240.30 is fairly clear on what constitutes aggravated harassment. Even under the most narrow views of the statute, how can it not qualify as aggravated harassment? Under that standard, I'm having a hard time seeing how every incident of libel or slander wouldn't be prosecuted as aggravated harrassment. Even better, under that standard none of the regular defenses against libel or slander is usable. I know it's easy to ignore the facts of this particular case and run off the deep end spouting free speech and all. But when you realize that these officials (and let's not mistake them for anything less) presented knowingly false statements as fact for the purpose to annoy, harass, alarm, etc. Firoini and Tanoury, you realize how easy it is to see that this is a unique incident of libel. Certainly if I heard that you were a child molester and have sex with goats. And I pass that tidbit onto someone else, I canNOT be prosecuted for aggravated harassment. The intent is simply lacking. And, even if there was intent, if those statements turned out to be true, well, that's an absolute defense to libel. I'd have to research the case law surrounding defense of truth in aggravated harassment cases. But since this is merely a devil's advocate position, I won't. Since that was too easy I could stop there, but I'll continue since you took the time to address my points. :-) Quote: You have two public officials, who presented false allegations as fact for the purpose of "revenge against the republican party for not supporting me 2 years ago, and my disdain for tanoury." There is your intent. That's the difference! And that pretty much sounds like a textbook example of libel or slander, right down to the stated malice for a public figure, doesn't it? Nope, sounds like aggravated harassment, right down to the letter. Actual malice in libel means "knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for truth or falsity." Here, there is an added intent component (revenge and personal disdain), which as I have stated before is the difference between a textbook example of libel and aggravated harassment. I could say Picente has child porn on his computers and may be subject to libel or slander if I have an actual disregard for the truth or falsity of that statement, but not aggravated harassment because I'm not making the statement with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm him. Additionally, you'd have to show that other people believed it to be true, for libel; which is not a requirement for aggravated harassment. And that pretty much sounds like a textbook example of libel or slander, right down to the stated malice for a public figure, doesn't it? Textbook definition of defamation of character: A statement that when published subjects the individual who is the subject of that statement to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule, obloquy. The definition of aggravated harassment is beyond that and requires a specific intent to harass, annoy, or cause concern. But they obviously are paying thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, for the prosecution. For a texbook defamation or slander case. If this was being handled as a civil matter the expense to taxpayers would be trivial. As a criminal matter the meter just keeps on ticking as time goes by. Is it that obvious? Where is your support for that notion? How many man hours and the cost to those man hours would be at taxpayer expense if it were civil versus criminal? That's, of course, assuming both cases go to trial. I'd love to see your factually-based breakdown. I'll wait... Which, yet again, sounds exactly like the definition of libel or slander. You would be wise to review the textbook definition of libel/slander and PL 240.30. Given the D.A.'s flexible definition of what now constitutes aggravated harassment I'm somewhat chagrined that no charges were ever filed against Joseph Longo. Mr. McNamara was provided with clear evidence that Mr. Longo used both telephone calls and text messages to threaten violence against himself and his wife, clearly in an attempt to harass and annoy her, yet he refused to press criminal charges. Actually, that is a textbook definition of aggravated harassment in the most extreme sense of the crime. And if the wife took it to family court, assuming she could prove the family offense petition, she could have been successful in obtaining a stay away order of protection. Sounds like the DA dropped the ball on this one. I can only speculate, of course, but I think there's a good chance both Mr. and Mrs. Longo would still be alive today if Mr. McNamara had been using his current definition of "aggravated harassment" back in August and September. Again, it's not a flexible and current definition. And do we know for sure that Mrs. Longo was trying to press charges? From what I've heard the police and the DA dropped the ball because it involved one of their own... |
|
|
|
Post by corner on Jan 12, 2010 13:44:20 GMT -5
my understanding is mrs longo did not want her husband to lose his job or be suspended as she would lose out on alimony, child support health insurance and claim to his pension, she needed his income intact in order to take him to the cleaners.
|
|
