Reply #54

Scarebaby would only have to prove that the comments are false--and she would have
to demonstrate measurable losses (to business or to her reputation).

Only public figures who are libeled have to prove "fault". They must prove that the
offender knew the comments were lies and published them anyway. That's why
celebrities don't sue the National Enquirer, etc. It's pretty difficult to prove that
a reporter or another person knew the published info was lies and intentionally (and with
malice) published anyway.

A public figure is defined as someone who "thrusts themselves into the spotlight" and
Scarebaby does not meet this legal criteria.

She only has to prove that the statements are false. No problem there.

One of the necessary libel elements is "identification". You must be clearly identified
to win a successful libel suit. By lying about Scarebaby, she was identified--because
Scarebaby is connected back to her website and her business. In effect, Rush libeled
her (called her a liar, a fraud and a White House tool) as Scarebaby and defamed the
Scarebaby name/business.

Scarebaby must prove that she suffered a loss due to this--either in business, profit or
loss of reputation. As I mentioned in a previous post--she should be gathering up every
negative word typed about her on the net. Her printer should be smoking.

That's my opinion anyway. Others may have additional thoughts.