There's a lot of buzz about a lawsuit I hear from my friends in China at Spatium Trientis on the story that Beijing lawyers in China are contemplating filing a class action for libel and defamation on behalf of all 1.3 Chinese peoples against CNN's Jack Cafferty and the CNN news organization to be filed in Chinese courts.
Holy egg rolls ! CNN and Cafferty can't pay those "yellow horde" spreading "yellow peril." Call for our "White Knights in Shining White Armors in their White Horses to the defense." The "Dream Team" a la O.J. Simpson ? Who can appear in Chinese courts and speak Chinese ? Not English ?
This is a fascinating test on the laws about defamation from a different non-Euro "cultural perspective," not just "cultural defense," but now based on how cultures affect the laws about defamation. The Europeanized concept of free speech is expansive.
The rule of law ? "Eat your tofu and poisoned pet food," Jack Cafferty.
In fact, I have always derisively called America's free speech laws "Constitutional protected right to be dumb and stupid" under our First Amendment. Free speech in America is increasingly equated as recklessly irresponsible speech, unthoughtful and bigoted and downright vulgar.
But that's America for you. Every one is guranteed right to be stupid under the Constitution. Even a dumb white ass like Jack Cafferty.
The Beijing lawsuit against Cafferty and CNN will underscore the growing wide divide between how Americans view "free speech" even if the speech is reckless and irresponsible and directed against a mass of people instead of a definnable, identifiable group small enough to come within the ambit of libel laws. And clearly, Cafferty's intemperate remarks about those "goons" sending us junk and poisoned cat food are "dumb ass" racist.
In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, the statesman and still surviving founder of modern Singapore, has filed numerous libel suits, including several against the Wall Street Journal, for its reporters slanderous and libelous attacks against him as a Singaporean political leader.
For Americans too dumb to even have heard of the name of Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore, try wiki him at Wikipedia, and look at how he had successfully sued many libelous news media and individuals under Singapore's libel laws on paragraph 8.2 about him. Wiki by clicking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
But given the expansive laws in the U.S. , federal or state-wide, under our Europeanized concept of free speech, I doubt that in California courts, the lawsuit can be sustained. Worse, it will probably be thrown out of court because of our onerous laws in California protecting so-called free speech even if that speech is reckless, racist, and irresponsible.
Here's the layman's rules under our Anti-SLAPP statutes in California from Wikipedia; click on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP.
California
The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.
The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.
California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed.
