Posted On: 10/22/2013 8:19:48 PM
Post# of 8059
so e.g. a person is protected from a suit for general remarks such as,e.g., in the Klamath basin water battles,
"Farmers should not be able to take priority over the public or the flows necessary to preserve fish species" -
under the slapp statutes farmers could not sue over that statement because its a general statement,does not identity or name individuals ,and is a public policy matter
thats a totally different situation from saying, "farmer so and so bribed a public official so and so to get favored water protection for his farm" -which would be a libelous statement not protected by the statute
in the lieflub case the judge mistakenly put libelous statements against the person of Ken into the 1st category -that of general public policy statements -which the judge thought were made on a chat board if i remember!!!!!!!!!
i was so disgusted in reading the case i only spent a minute or 2 on it because i recognized the manipulation involved
"Farmers should not be able to take priority over the public or the flows necessary to preserve fish species" -
under the slapp statutes farmers could not sue over that statement because its a general statement,does not identity or name individuals ,and is a public policy matter
thats a totally different situation from saying, "farmer so and so bribed a public official so and so to get favored water protection for his farm" -which would be a libelous statement not protected by the statute
in the lieflub case the judge mistakenly put libelous statements against the person of Ken into the 1st category -that of general public policy statements -which the judge thought were made on a chat board if i remember!!!!!!!!!
i was so disgusted in reading the case i only spent a minute or 2 on it because i recognized the manipulation involved
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
