2 ms·
In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your
by lolinder 3y ago
In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your intent.
- mrguyorama 3y agoBut that doesn't mean you can't be held responsible and civilly liable, which is what punitive damages are. Civil court has a "lower" standard of evidence because it can't take your rights away, not because it can't find you at fault for something and levy a "don't freaking do that" fine against you.
- lolinder 3y agoAs I've replied elsewhere, it's not a question of the existence of the punitive damages, it's a question of ratio. 4:1 is a typical ratio, 1m:1 is completely unheard of. You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
- buttercraft 3y agoThey "legally" did find harm: $1
- lolinder 3y agoAnd as I've said elsewhere, that number gives them the right to levy up to $500 in punitive damages if they feel that Steyn's actions were especially egregious (and even that number would be subject to severe scrutiny on appeal). A 1:1m ratio of actual to punitive damages is just punishing speech as speech, not a true defamation verdict.
- croes 3y agoThe District of Colombia doesn't have those caps
- lolinder 3y agoThe District of Columbia is within the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so Supreme Court rulings establishing a rule of proportionality definitely still apply. What you're referring to is that there is no cap to the monetary amount of either type of damages, not that the ratio between them can be severely disproportionate.