Randi the Amazing’s Showdown

[kedo1981]

Randi the Amazing’s Showdown

He is getting long in the tooth and I am inferring; from reading his resent commentary’s; that the Rand-meister is try-N to pick a fight.
One last slugfest with the psychics, the dowsers, the ghosties and goulies , the pink unicorns and the faith healers.
We would all hate to see him go, but just maybe he’s looking at his own mortality and thinking” what do I have to lose; I’ll just call im all out and see what happens”.
The resent commentary where he calls Silva Brown a liar would in most cases be libel, and I think he wants her to take him to court.

[Dragon]

It would only be libel if it wasn't true so I don't understand your "most cases" comment.

If Randi is spoiling for a fight I think its only with Sylvia at the moment (and with good reason).
He might be getting on a bit but everything I hear from him or read about him shows him to be a shrewd old curmudgeon who knows how to choose his battles.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by kedo1981
Randi the Amazing’s Showdown

He is getting long in the tooth and I am inferring; from reading his resent commentary’s; that the Rand-meister is try-N to pick a fight.
One last slugfest with the psychics, the dowsers, the ghosties and goulies , the pink unicorns and the faith healers.
We would all hate to see him go, but just maybe he’s looking at his own mortality and thinking” what do I have to lose; I’ll just call im all out and see what happens”.
The resent commentary where he calls Silva Brown a liar would in most cases be libel, and I think he wants her to take him to court.

If you had a clue as to the absolute sleaze that Sylvia has tried to refer to in public in a pathetic attempt to get Randi to back off, you'd realise that it is nowhere near libel.

It regards Sylvia's reference to the Rumson police and a certain officer Xanthos.

[CFLarsen]

kedo1981,

You might want to read this article:
Despite her sanctimonious appearance, there is a mean streak in her. Even though she claims that she is not offended by criticism and that one should always maintain a positive outlook, she plays very dirty when she is cornered.

When she finally appeared on Larry King together with James Randi, investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, in September 2001 to discuss the terms for her taking the Randi Challenge , she told Randi to have his doctor check his left heart ventricle - there was something very wrong with it. There wasn't. However, five months later, James Randi had a gall stone removed - this completely went by without Browne taking notice. So much for Sylvia's psychic powers.

The day after the show, she also posted a link on her website to another site that accused Randi of being a pedophile. The link, as well as the site, was removed later, without explanation.
Sylvia Browne: Fast-Food Psychic (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/sylviabrowne.htm)

[kedo1981]

Man oh man can you guys miss a point or what?????

He wants her to sue!

so he can get her into court!

An A-POC-O-LIP-TIC show down so to speak.

GO GO GO Randi.

[Zep]

Nope. He's just being the lovable old rascal and curmudgeon we know him as. I'm willing to bet that his last words will be "...and you won't be hearing from ME again!'.

[Peter Morris]

... shortly after which he will say "Well, this doesn't mean anything, there is no proof that you exist"

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Q: Isn’t it closed-minded to say that the supernatural is impossible!?
A: F*ck you!

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by kedo1981
...The resent commentary where he calls Silva Brown a liar would in most cases be libel, and I think he wants her to take him to court.

The truth is an absolute defense to libel.

[Zep]

Originally posted by phildonnia
The truth is an absolute defense to libel. ...but only in the USA! Not so in Australia, nor (I believe) the UK.

[Nigel]

as posted by Zep:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by phildonnia
The truth is an absolute defense to libel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...but only in the USA! Not so in Australia, nor (I believe) the UK.

That's interesting Zep. I wasn't aware of that. How come?

Nigel

[Zep]

Originally posted by Nigel
as posted by Zep:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by phildonnia
The truth is an absolute defense to libel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...but only in the USA! Not so in Australia, nor (I believe) the UK.

That's interesting Zep. I wasn't aware of that. How come?

Nigel If I recall correctly, it's to do with "lowering someone in the eyes of the community", not the truth-or-falsehood of the comment. Olde Englishe legal folderol. I believe we have an Australian solicitor on this forum somewhere who might be able to clarify this better...

What I could find in the New South Wales law on the matter: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da197499/s15.html

[Nigel]

as posted by Zep
What I could find in the New South Wales law on the matter: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/...197499/s15.htmlThanks! I'll look it up asap. That's one thing I love about living in this time...that the information is out there. It may take some digging, but it's out there. :)

Nigel

[showme2]

Originally posted by Zep
...but only in the USA! Not so in Australia, nor (I believe) the UK.

Wrong in the case of the UK !
That what was said is true is a complete defence to an action for libel or slander in the UK.
(Of course, you need to be in a position to PROVE it was the truth.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by showme2


Wrong in the case of the UK !
That what was said is true is a complete defence to an action for libel or slander in the UK.
(Of course, you need to be in a position to PROVE it was the truth.)

Good summary of the position:

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.html

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Darat


Good summary of the position:

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defTrueLibel.html

This would fall under US law.

In the United States, libel falls into two basic categories:

1) Private citizen

2) Public citizen

It is much easier to prove libel involving a private citizen than a public citizen.

In the case of a public citizen (Randi and Sylvia), Syliva would have to prove actual malice.

Actual malice is very hard to prove and calling a public figure a liar is not libel under US law - end of story.

Besides, Syliva would never want to bring her dog and pony show into the courtroom. Judges require factual proof. And they wouldn't require it of Randi; they would require it of Syliva.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by showme2


Wrong in the case of the UK !
That what was said is true is a complete defence to an action for libel or slander in the UK.
(Of course, you need to be in a position to PROVE it was the truth.)

There's a fairly good book that covers this issue in some detail : Lying About Hitler, by Richard J. Evans, which treats the details of the David Irving trial.

The on-a-postcard summary is that Irving claimed to have been libelled in being described as a Holocaust denier. The author and publisher proved the truth of the label, and were acquitted (under UK law).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by showme2


Wrong in the case of the UK !
That what was said is true is a complete defence to an action for libel or slander in the UK.
(Of course, you need to be in a position to PROVE it was the truth.)

In Scots Law the statement must be false for there to be actionable defamation.

[showme2]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs


This would fall under US law.

In the United States, libel falls into two basic categories:

1) Private citizen

2) Public citizen

It is much easier to prove libel involving a private citizen than a public citizen.

In the case of a public citizen (Randi and Sylvia), Syliva would have to prove actual malice.

Actual malice is very hard to prove and calling a public figure a liar is not libel under US law - end of story.

Besides, Syliva would never want to bring her dog and pony show into the courtroom. Judges require factual proof. And they wouldn't require it of Randi; they would require it of Syliva.

This just demonstrates how stupid USA law is.
Either a statement is demonstrably true, or it is not.
If it is true, why should any citizen be penalised for stating it? Doesn't matter whether there is any malicious intent or not - either it's true or it isn't.

And you can call any public figure a liar and get away with it because it isn't libel ????? How the hell does THAT stack up rationally then ?

[Clancie]

Posted by kookbreaker

It regards Sylvia's reference to the Rumson police and a certain officer Xanthos
It is surprisingly difficult to find an objective, factual link to the original story.

(edited to add: looking for information on the story that these people are referring to about Randi, not Sylvia).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
It is surprisingly difficult to find an objective, factual link to the original story.

You can start with these:

http://www.randi.org/jr/091701.html

http://www.randi.org/jr/092801.html

That should give you enough search material.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Nigel
as posted by Zep:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by phildonnia
The truth is an absolute defense to libel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...but only in the USA! Not so in Australia, nor (I believe) the UK.

That's interesting Zep. I wasn't aware of that. How come?

Nigel

Most (it may be all) Australian states have a "public interest" requirement attached to their defamation defense requirements, and "public interest" has a very specific meaning which is totally different than public curiosity.