Originally Posted by bigswede
Usually when a defamation case goes to court it is the party injured by slander that sues the other party. In the OJ Simpson case it was the other way around, wasn't it? He was sued into paying them off to shut up about how his wife died.
Swede, it gets difficult/tiresome when you make stuff up you don't know or deflect and don't respond to the actual point. The point I was making is that there are different standards of proof for CIVIL cases than CRIMINAL cases. They should NEVER be confused.

A criminal case is stacked heavily, and appropriately, against conviction. I have worked on both sides of that process. That is why the vast majority of criminal cases never go to trial, because proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is hard to prove. Civil cases, on the other hand, only require a "preponderance of the evidence" - e.g., "more likely than not." Defamation, libel and slander are at that standard as is wrongful death (the Goldman case). In a civil case, one is not "guilty" but "liable."

Quote
I still hold to the innocent until proven guilty principle. Cliven Bundy has not been proven guilty in a court of law yet, has he? We should do good on our commitment to truth and fair procedure and not call him a terrorist. He was not even accused by the prosecution of terrorism, was he? So he's not even an alleged terrorist, he is merely an alleged criminal.
He is 1) an alleged criminal, 2) a found lawbreaker and 3) a definitional terrorist. Let me clarify - his trial for criminal activities was thrown out on "a technicality" as has been said by some; he has been found liable for violating a federal law and owes over a million dollars in civil fees; he has admittedly violated a Federal District Court order and trespassed - which can lead to criminal contempt prosecution (just ask Joe Arpaio); and his activities, and particularly those of his sons, meet the definitional standards for "terrorism". I seriously doubt he could win a defamation case for making such an allegation because he faces two hurdles: proving malice, and "the truth" defense.

Following your logic, however, let's try this question: Was Osama Bin Laden a terrorist? He admitted to it (as has Bundy), he did it for ideological reasons (as has Bundy), he advocated violence against the U.S. government (as has Bundy), and he was never convicted. Please distinguish. I don't think, by the way, that Osama Bin Laden would win a defamation argument, either.