You Can Only Say So Much !

Bad mouthing a person or his business may get you
in trouble in a California state court. This is the first
time that the high court has barred defendants in a
defamation cases from making statements in the
future. If this case reaches the U.S. Supreme court
how do you think that court will rule. Check out the
story and offer up your opinion-Peace.


In a significant development in free speech law, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state courts may silence people who have defamed others.Ruling in the case of a 58-year-old Newport Beach woman who accused a local bar of serving tainted food and making sex videos, the high court said a judge may order Anne Lemen to stop repeating false and scurrilous statements that were found by a trial court to be defamatory.

The decision marked the first time the state high court has approved barring defendants in defamation cases from making statements in the future. Judges typically punish defamation by ordering defendants to pay damages.The dissenters in the 5-2 ruling warned that the court was authorizing a prior restraint on free speech, a legal concept rooted in English common law. "To forever gag the speaker — the remedy approved by the majority — goes beyond chilling speech," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote.

"It freezes speech." Because violating such an order could mean fines or jail, the prospect may "deter a person from speaking at all," Kennard wrote.But the majority said a narrow order against further defamation was constitutional."An injunction issued following a trial … that does no more than prohibit the defendant from repeating the defamation is not a prior restraint and does not offend the 1st Amendment," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.A lawsuit by Aric Toll, who owns the Village Inn on Balboa Island with his parents, triggered the decision.

Toll said Lemen was driving his customers away by videotaping them and telling outrageous lies about his business. He said Lemen told others that he had Mafia connections and had attempted to kill her.Toll's plight elicited sympathy from some of the justices at oral arguments, a factor that probably influenced Thursday's ruling."Every ruling is affected by the facts of the case, and that is why hard cases make bad law," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court. "But when it comes to the burdens with respect to 1st Amendment protection, this is a pretty significant step.

"Toll, 41, said he was "very happy" about the ruling. He said he had spent about $100,000 pursuing his case against Lemen, who describes herself as a Christian evangelist and owns a home next door to Toll's business. "She is capable of a lot of damage, and she just doesn't let up," Toll said.





This Article Continues Here





Get your copy of the award winning King:
"From Atlanta to the Mountain top
It's the 3-Hour Docudrama that
tells the story of the Civil Rights
movement and the life of its
Drum Major for Peace,
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
To learn more and hear
excerpts from this treasured
program,click here:
http://www.kingprogram.net/