John Doe vs. John Doe: Virginia Court's Decision in Online 'John Doe' Case Hailed by Free-Speech Advocates

[Sandy Sandfort]

Jim wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
> > Jim wrote:
> >
> > >	Amendment VI
> > >
> > > In all criminal prosecutions...
> >
> > This was a civil case.
>
> Which raises an interesting point,
> 'defemation' is presented as a 'crime'
> yet it is managed in a 'civil' case,
> thus denying critical civil liberties
> to the person being acted against.

Under the common law, defamation is a tort, not a crime.  Though some
jurisdictions may have a parallel criminal statute against defamation, when
one party sues another, it's civil, not criminal.

A good analogy would be "battery."  Under the common law, the cause of
action called battery was defined as an unwanted touching.  Case law has
filled out that definition with examples, exceptions, etc.

Most US jurisdiction also have a crime called battery.  So if you hit me,
the cops can arrest you and prosecute you for the crime of battery.
Independently, I may sue you for the common law tort of battery.

Remember OJ?--criminally prosecuted for murder, civilly sued for wrongful
death.  He skated on the first, lost on the second.  Why?  Different
standards of proof.  When the state goes after you, they have to prove their
case "beyond a reasonable doubt."  When an individual sues you, they have to
prove their case "by the preponderance of the evidence."  In engineering
terms, 98% vs. 51%.

All the rest that Jim wrote is gobbledygook derived from a misunderstanding
of how the common law works.


 S a n d y