~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 👨⚖️👨⚖️Wow, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but of course proving actual malice doesn’t automatically mean damages are presumed. You have to prove all the other normal elements that apply in private defamation cases as well. You said actual damages must be proven in Johnny’s case. That is simply not true if he can make a case for defamation per se (because this is a crime of moral turpitude) and ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE DEFAMATION ARE PROVEN AS WELL. Similarly, since he is a pu… | /r/PussyPassDenied | 08/04/20 07:29 PM |
| 0 | 👨⚖️👨⚖️it must cause actual damages. ... "because he is a public figure, if he proves actual malice, damages are presumed." | /r/PussyPassDenied | 08/04/20 11:30 AM |
| -2 | 👨⚖️👨⚖️I never said anything about true accusations. But defamation based on a false accusation (as everyone here thinks and agrees with) of a crime of moral turpitude is absolutely defamation per se. Again, I never said anything about this being a true statement. If Johnny can prove the statement is false (which in my view is likely), then because he is a public figure, if he proves actual malice, damages are presumed. | /r/PussyPassDenied | 08/04/20 08:29 AM |
| 1 | 👨⚖️👨⚖️This is probably defamation per se because it involves an accusation of a crime of moral turpitude, so presumed damages. Also, since these are public figures if actual malice in publication can be proven then damages will be presumed. | /r/PussyPassDenied | 08/04/20 07:32 AM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter