From: “Peter J. Capelli” <pete@idaho.ubisg.com>
To: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
Message Hash: 112408b75c49286d560952de758056fa393badb6a702a217e16c6a6ae83e7255
Message ID: <199702011641.IAA20624@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-01 16:41:11 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:41:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Peter J. Capelli" <pete@idaho.ubisg.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:41:11 -0800 (PST)
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
Message-ID: <199702011641.IAA20624@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Mark M. wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel.
> > > It is, they say, a rich man's game
> >
> > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy.
>
> Anyone can afford a contingency-free attorney as long as the plaintiff has a
> good chance of being awarded damages. This has the benefit that the legal
> system doesn't get overcrowded with frivolous cases.
You mean to say, rich people can overcrowd the courts as much as they
like, while others are restricted by contigency-only lawyers ( Call
1-800-AMBULANCE! ) ... and what of the case of a rich person trying to control
a poor one with many frivolous lawsuits ... while they can afford to file
lawsuit after lawsuit, the poor person cannot defend himself.
--
Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli@ub.com
****** Finger pete@idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ******
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Return to February 1997
Return to ““Peter J. Capelli” <pete@idaho.ubisg.com>”
1997-02-01 (Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:41:11 -0800 (PST)) - Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment - “Peter J. Capelli” <pete@idaho.ubisg.com>