Will not hold up.
-
mettemarithaakon — 18 years ago(November 10, 2007 08:48 PM)
Actually, she doesn't. Her arugment is based not on the tapes, but what Duane said during his apology tour.
Libel is what Monique should have said. Slander isn't the correct term. Both transcripts show no libelous nor slanderous actions on Duane's part. Moreover, CNN and Fox News will also be implicated, defendants, alongside Duane. Their high profile & well known legal teams reviewed each question prior to the on air shows. Duane was also coached thus particular with his word usage when talking about Monique. He knew to be very careful.
Monique doesn't have a case that will hold up in court. I'm sure you would love to see her rail Duane through the system, Independantthinker, but the reality is she doesn't stand a chance. Duane might settle, but to go to trial no way. -
rekd — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 05:25 AM)
It can not be the tapes because they were a "private conversation" as far as Dog was concerned. I can call anyone anything I want in private. Have you never complained about a coworker or your parents?
What he has said in the public forum has not been bad. -
mettemarithaakon — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 10:14 AM)
"Do you have a reputable source that says her lawsuit is not based on the tapes? On Hannity & Colmes they were arguing the merits of this lawsuit, and they were clearly under the impression that it is based on the tapes. Plus, everyone who's been discussing it on imdb has been arguing under the impression it's based on the tapes. So since you are the only person who says it isn't, you can understand my hesitancy to believe you."
She announced this to the National Enquirer only. She refuses to talk to any reputable source besides them. According to her taped interview with them she notes, "Monique Shinnery, against whom Dog used the racial epithet several times during his taped tirade, tells the tab that she's going to sue for slander. "I want justice," says Monique. "He has slandered me, stated that I have bad character and repeatedly lied about me on national television."
Go to their website to read the who article. -
tll9230 — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 06:55 AM)
Let me share something with you
Slander- an oral statment of a false, malicious or defamatory nature, tending to damage another's reputation or means of livlihood.
As important as any freedom to which you are entitled is freedom from unwarranted, untruthful attacks on your character. This kind of attack, if made in the presence (Tucker) of other people constitutes defamation, for which you are entitled to nominal or punitive damages, as the case may be. If you are defamed orally, you have been slandered. If the defamation is in writing and shown to or seen by someone else, you have been libeled. Slander is the less serious of the two torts because it is fleeting. Of course the attacks on you written or oral must be untrue to constitute libel or slander (can Monique prove she's not a N*****I think she can). Truth is almost always a perfect defense in an action for either tort. Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. It wouldnt amount to much if we were not allowed to things we know are true. You can go pretty far in expressing your, opinion, but you risk a lawsuit if you go to far in commenting on your neighbors personal traits. And he specifically said, "He was speaking of her character not her race." As far as a private conversation I am not versed on the laws of wiretapping in HI but I wouldnt consider this to be wiretapping and you can a record a call legally if at least one of the parties is aware the call is being recorded. So I guess I say all this to say she can sue; she has a very good case and I'm sure a team of lawyers have contacted her so she can say slander, libel whatever she wants the lawyers will know exactly what verbage to use when the file the paperwork. (Poor, Henry Assoc. Dean, Yale University Law School) In case any one questions the information given within my post. -
mettemarithaakon — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 10:18 AM)
- It's not about the phone call.
She is NOT allegingly suing based upon the phone call. She's purportedly suing for statements Dog has made on television about her.
Under Hawaii law, one person CAN record a cellphone conversation and the person on the other end doesn't have to know it's being recorded. That's legal in Hawaii, although that's not the case in other states. In Hawaii, it only becomes illegal if the recording is made for a criminal or tortious reason.
If Monique was involved in Tucker's decision to record the phone call, she can't sue on a tort (slander is a tort) without violating Hawaiian law. So, if she's wanting to sue, she has to find other statements to form the basis of her lawsuit.
Plus, Dog's statements in the phone call were private: he didn't know he was being recorded. Defamation by definition involves a PUBLIC communication. - You can read Dog's Public Statements on LKL and Hannity & Colmes
I didn't hear anything that sounded slanderous - and yes, I believe that Dog was prepared beforehand to be careful here. A good attorney would have been careful to instruct him on the boundaries of legal defamation. Even if Dog doesn't have a lawyer to do that, you can bet Larry King does.
The LNL transcript is online. So is Hannity & Colmes' transcript. Go read for yourself, see what you find.
One thing I clearly remember. Dog said that Tucker should marry Monique, especially after all that has happened. - It's not slander, it's libel, and Dog would not be the only Defendant.
Now, here's the bottom line: Slander is defaming someone verbally. Libel is doing so in writing. However, when a statement is spread over the TV airwaves, it counts as libel because it's essentially "published" like it had appeared in a newspaper or magazine.
The report that the suit is for "slander" isn't legally accurate. Another error.
Now, back to a libel action. There has to be a specific statement which has to be false, and Dog has to have known it was false when he said it. What statement is being referenced here? What TV statements are we talking about here?
Another element of the cause of action: the statement has to harm the person's reputation or standing in the community. Where's Monique been harmed? What was her reputation and standing in the community before this brouhaha? How has it changed?
And, finally, the speaker has to have acted with malice Dog would have to be shown to have spoken the statement on TV with malicious intent and a disregard for the harm it might cause.
Once again, Dog on Larry King was apologizing to everyone, everywhere. To Larry, to callers, to the public at large. He stated that Tucker should marry Monique. Not a malicious frame of mind.
I'm not seeing a successful defamation suit here. Both Dog and the entities responsible for the TV show would be defendants, of course. Now, you know CNN has some legal big dogs at the ready.
- It's not about the phone call.
-
tll9230 — 18 years ago(November 11, 2007 11:15 AM)
Because I read what he said regarding her character not during the phone conversation but afterwards during his "apology" ,and based on my knowledge of the law I feel she has a valid case. But we shall see. Right now I think I'm okay with just disagreeing with you; or as they say, why don't we just agree to disagree.
