4 ms·
Whether he did it or not, if a record was sealed and a journalist explicitly goes around publishing the details of a case and the person loses their job, I thin
by darth_avocado 2y ago
Whether he did it or not, if a record was sealed and a journalist explicitly goes around publishing the details of a case and the person loses their job, I think it’s grounds for defamation. The sealed records are sealed for a reason.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoIf they were sealed, it stands to reason as well that the journalist may not have seen all the sealed records, leading to an incomplete picture. Perhaps the girlfriend had a written recantation, or came to a mutual understanding, or a psychological assessment was conducted, or it was discovered she was the instigator; we wouldn’t know, it’s sealed. Good luck defending your name publicly when your defense requires pointing to sealed records the public can’t verify.
- MollyGodiva 2y agoDefamation requires the information to be false.
- baobabKoodaa 2y agoAs a blanket statement that is incorrect. For example, in Finland it doesn't have to be false.
- jrflowers 2y agoThis is a good point. In a similarly salient vein it is legal to drive without a seat belt in New Hampshire and federally illegal to catch lobsters below a certain size in the US.
- kstrauser 2y agoPossibly true, but not relevant to a case in California.
- lokar 2y agoIn the US the truth is an absolute defense for liable and defamation (aiui)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tw04 2y agoThey were sealed because the abused woman refused to cooperate with the state - a pretty common occurrence with abuse victims and definitely not “proof” that the initial arrest should be hidden from public view. Everything in the initial report is pretty horrible.