I think Michael should sue the media

[phish420]

I BEG and PLEAD for Michael Schiavo to sue each and every blog, website, radio station, newspaper and TV 'news' reporter for slander and/or libel. If they had ANY sort of basis of fact behind their emtpy allegations, that would be one thing. But when you say "We dont know if he just wants her to die so he can <fill in the blank - get money, marry his girlfriend, get back at the parents, whatever their lame excuse is today>", you are disgracing a man's name without any kind of proof. They have no basis for saying any of this. They even SAY "we dont know if..."...yeah, you DONT know, so you have no business having the words leave your damn lips! I hope to GOD Felos talks him into a massive slander/libel campaign, suing hundreds of 'reporters' and 'pundits' and know-it-all 'bloggers' to let these people know once and for all that you cant just throw baseless allegations attacking someones character when you havent even so much as shaken the man's hand or have nothing to shed even the slightest bit of evidence to support the allegations.
Remember, Michael didn't publicize this, the parents did. He did not ask to be a public figure, and he does not deserve to be disgraced as he has.

[AllegroRondo]

1. Put Hannity and Rush at the top of the list

[Greylyn58]

7. Amen!!!

And maybe add Tom Delay to that group...the whack-job!!!

[jedr]

2. was thinking the same.....

damn wouldn't that keep the Fox lawyers busy!

[LoganW]

3. Will you be paying all his attorney fees?

for cases he probably won't even have a chance with when the first amendment is read?

[phish420]

9. As stated in another post....

...I will contribute weekly to his legal fund. Lets set one up. Anyone know how? Let's get this done. We can take these bastards down!

[thinkingwoman]

4. as a journalist-in-recovery

I do too!

It has to stop!

I NEVER even alluded to such charges against someone in all my years in journalism. NEVER. Even when somebody admitted killing a person, they were still "alleged" to have committed the crime until they were convicted and sentenced.

There is no excuse for slander. It's not part of journalism and it's NOT protected by the 1st amendment. Furthermore, Michael Schiavo is NOT a public figure just because his inlaws dragged this story into the limelight and there's very little leeway for the press on this.

The first time somebody is brave enough to sue the crap out of everyone, it will stop.

Pardon my rant.

[jedr]

12. slander is slander!

I'd donate to such a fund...it's the only way to shut Rove up.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Knowing them

they'll probably try to make him into a public figure. :eyes: I would personally sue Bill Frist and Tom DeLay for butting in and using someone I love for political gain. And the parents for all their harrassments and all that. I think it's so disgusting. :grr:

[thinkingwoman]

42. even public figures

can prove slander. It's just harder. They have, however, called him a murderer.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think they can make him a public figure when he did not seek out the notoriety.

[kaitykaity]

5. He's a public figure.

They can pretty much say whatever the hell they want to
about him.

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm

CAN LIBEL SUITS BE BROUGHT BY A PUBLIC FIGURE?

These suits are a bit dicer for the public figure.

A public figure may be an elected or appointed (a politician) or someone who has stepped into a public controversy (e.g., movie stars and TV stars, star athletes). Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average person since they must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. Proving these elements makes the chance of a successful lawsuit slim.

[Stephanie]

8. I don't believe he is a public figure

Just because his family has been the subject of news stories does not make him a public figure.

[kaitykaity]

10. He might not have been before this, but he is now.

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html

Public Figure refers to any person who receives frequent media attention, or is well-known in a particular area. Public figures who make claims of libel must prove 'actual malice' to succeed in such a case.

[phish420]

16. Still not a problem

Felos is a good attorney, I have confidence in him. He can do it. How do we get a hold of these guys?

[Stephanie]

17. Nah, I don't think so

He is the subject of a news story. That doesn't make him Paris Hilton. The press is covering one story, the battle over his wife's care. That is not the same as "frequent media attention." If that were the case, who WOULD be eligible to sue for libel? Once you've been slandered in the press, you qualify as a public figure? I don't think so.

[kaitykaity]

23. He's an integral part of a famous case.

He's the face of the person who wants to end Terri's
ordeal.

Monica Lewinsky was a public figure because she was
the subject of news stories about her relationship
with political football Bill Clinton. Michael's a
public figure because of his relationship to this
political football known as Terri.

Same thing.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. They also

brought him into this when he didn't want it. The parents did of course. They knew they'd lose. I think they just wanted more money. Heh. But he was dragged into this as well because of his relationship with Mrs. Schavio. Public figures usually are voluntary.

[phish420]

13. absolutely

Again, he did not ask to be in this situation. To him, and to the law of the land as determined by court after court, this was a clear case - he had the right as his partner in marriage to make the call, and he did. The Schindlers made themselves public figures, but Michael has stayed relatively quiet. As for 'must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them'...I don't think that is a problem. They DO know that it has been brought up in court and determined NOT to be the case that he abused her before the accident or that he treated her badly afterwards. Both have been more than proven to be incorrect. There was no document argument between them at the time, they were trying to have children, there is NOTHING in the record that supports any of these allegations. There is malice when someone is being called a murderer and that he obviously has something to gain from her death, when the facts show there obviously is NO benefit to him.

[Discord]

14. If anyone ever used the term "murderer" on a broadcast

I think that would count right?

[kaitykaity]

20. No idea. I'm not a lawyer, just took Comm Law in college.

Six elements of a libel suit.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:tFiICWQFldIJ:www.ibiblio.org/medialaw/6--presentation--libel.ppt+%22public+figure%22+%22libel+suit%22&hl=en

I'm just saying the libel laws for public figures
makes it really tough for a public figure to sue
and win for libel. It can be done, but it's tough.

[Discord]

30. i guess alot would depend then if he would be

considered a public figure.

I mean he did 2 interviews right after the Congressional interferance then never spoke again on record.

He issued statements through his attourney, and dont even remember him being on any live footage after the interviews.

[rock]

19. Public figure?

Well, if he is it's because the new agencies invaded his privacy and made him one. Wait! That's a point that would would work for him in a suit.

[kaitykaity]

21. If he gave interviews willingly to the media then I don't think

he can charge they invaded his privacy. I don't think
it works that way.

[rock]

25. Ah, but they slandered him

Otherwise the media could say anything about anybody "because it's news". It's OK (within reason) to speculate about public figures, but not private individuals.

[Zynx]

22. I'm pretty sure you could still make a case.

A huge amount of the statements made against him have been pure smears which would meet the standard of

>>the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. <<

[democracyindanger]

33. He's a public figure, but it won't be that difficult to make his case

The outright slander and libel he's been subjected to is far greater than that of Richard Jewell, and Jewell won. Just pop in a tape of Nancy Grace.

[w4rma]

35. He's not a public figure. Calling him a public figure just because he's

been slandered all throught the "news" would make it imposible for non-public figures to sue since once they are slandered, using that definition, they become public-figures.

[kaitykaity]

37. I disagree.

So do the courts it would appear.
http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/18.html

For a time, the Court's decisional process threatened to expand the Times privilege so as to obliterate the distinction between private and public figures. First, the Court created a subcategory of ''public figure,'' which included those otherwise private individuals who have attained some prominence, either through their own efforts or because it was thrust upon them, with respect to a matter of public interest, or, in Chief Justice Warren's words, those persons who are ''intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.''129 More recently, the Court has curtailed the definition of ''public figure'' by playing down the matter of public interest and emphasizing the voluntariness of the assumption of a role in public affairs that will make of one a ''public figure.''130

[Stephanie]

38. I agree

If you become a public figure the minute your name is in the paper, slander laws are effectively null and void.

[Stephanie]

6. We don't know if George Bush bombs Iraqis for his own enjoyment, or

if he just hates brown-skinned people. We just don't know.

[Discord]

11. He'd have a case for sure.

The threats against his life, his integrity, and his future have been compromised.

[Blue_In_AK]

15. I couldn't believe it

when I heard Ms. Schiavo's brother on TV over the weekend making allegations about Michael's "abuse" causing her original heart attack. If he was so "abusive" and they were all so close to her, why didn't they notice and why didn't they do something about it back then?

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Exactly

And he would've been restricted from seeing her for all these years. :eyes: Yeah he really was. And I got a farm up in Pennsylvania. :eyes:

[Discord]

18. Too bad one of the judges didn't issue a gag order.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. gag orders only refer to the parties and witnesses...

eom

[Discord]

29. that would have kept the Shindlers from hitting the

media 15 times a day and putting out the disinformation that was fueling the fire.

[phish420]

26. So does anyone know how to contact them?

Like does anyone know what law office to call to leave a message for Mr Felos? I did a google search, but obviously with all the hoopla you get a bunch of nonsense like "George Felos - Acidhead and death lawyer". I would love to write him a letter letting him know that he should consider a legal fund to go after in what ever way legally possible, those who spread malicious lies about his client. If its not legally plausbible, Im sure he would be keenly aware of that, but if it is, money may be the only obstacle and I think the large number of people that support Michael and Terri's cause will help with that.

[DearAbby]

27. A- FREAKING- MEN I hope he is taking names

there is plenty of video evidence to back his case.

[phish420]

28. Hell yeah, Ive been recording it ALL

Including the REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS who accused him of trying to MURDER his wife.

[illflem]

31. I don't think he stands a chance sueing the media

but should sue the Schindlers and the groups that support them.

[phish420]

32. Hell...even if he doesn't succeed....

...at least the point would be made and the media would think twice about spewing baseless lies. Just to see the look on their face when the subpoena arrived would be worth it.

[monobrau]

34. I think he has a case against Pat Boone

And I'd wager Mr. Boone would have to pay a hefty judgement.

[mondo joe]

36. No case against THE MEDIA. But with a few figures he may have a case

for slander or libel.