How Come Nancy Grace Has Never Been Sued For Slander??

[bj81]

What is the name of your state? Arkansas
I have been wondering this, she slandered those Duke-lacrosse guys right up until the end and then ran and hid when the truth came out instead of facing up to her being wrong and she has also slandered many other people. Now, while there has been some real criminals that she has bashed, she still accuses anyone even remotely suspected and even not suspected with any crime of being guilty, that is just pure slander and jurors will listen to her even though she is TV.

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: Angry How Come Nancy Grace Has Never Been Sued For Slander?

A: How would anyone know the answer to that?

 

[bj81]

Q: Angry How Come Nancy Grace Has Never Been Sued For Slander?

A: How would anyone know the answer to that?

I don't see anything wrong with the question.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

you would have to ask each person who could have a reason to sue her, why they chose not to.

 

[quincy]

Lawsuits are extremely expensive to bring and they are time-consuming and there is never a guarantee you will win. Those are three good reasons not to sue anyone.

As for suing Nancy Grace, she has a lot of viewers, and a lot of viewers mean high ratings and money for CNN. When you sue Nancy Grace, you are going to be facing CNN lawyers and CNN money - and CNN money will, more than likely, last longer than your money will, and you are guaranteed years in court as they fight the suit.

And, as nasty as Nancy Grace is, most of what she says is opinion and protected by the First Amendment, and most of whom she attacks are considered "public figures" - many unwillingly thrust into the public spotlight, perhaps, by unfortunate circumstances, but public nonetheless. Public figures have a higher standard of proof that they need to meet in order to bring a successful defamation suit.

If people stop watching her, then CNN will let her go and all will be right with that little corner of the world - but I doubt if people will stop watching her.

 

[Quaere]

There was nothing wrong with the question. Public matters are treated differently than private matters and I think that does cause a lot of confusion with people.

Nancy Grace, her peers, and for that matter any member of the public, are covered by a defense known as “fair comment on a matter of public interest”. If something is considered “newsworthy” (and what ISN’T considered newsworthy?), the people involved basically lose the protections they enjoyed as private citizens.

People in the news retain a tiny bit of protection. I’m sure some of them cash in when the occasional commentator crosses the line. For the most part though, professional news people know how to phrase things to prevent such problems.

 

[bj81]

There was nothing wrong with the question. Public matters are treated differently than private matters and I think that does cause a lot of confusion with people.

Nancy Grace, her peers, and for that matter any member of the public, are covered by a defense known as “fair comment on a matter of public interest”. If something is considered “newsworthy” (and what ISN’T considered newsworthy?), the people involved basically lose the protections they enjoyed as private citizens.

People in the news retain a tiny bit of protection. I’m sure some of them cash in when the occasional commentator crosses the line. For the most part though, professional news people know how to phrase things to prevent such problems.

But she influences juries which are usually made up of women and women listen to her,

 

[quincy]

If a juror is influenced by an outside source such as Nancy Grace, and is not basing his/her decision in a case on the merits of the case itself and the evidence presented, the juror is doing a major disservice to the defendant. They would make a lousy juror - hopefully anyone like that would be "weeded out" of the jury pool prior to any trial.

Plus, juries are NOT comprised of mostly women. In addition, I know of no woman who is a "Stepford wife". Women seem to have minds of their own and will not be overly influenced by some TV host.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

But she influences juries which are usually made up of women and women listen to her,

what? Im a woman and I can't stand that &^&^*

 

[cbg]

I'm a woman also and I've never even turned her program on. I've also been called for jury duty several times and I assure you, there were plenty of men there as well.

Couldn't be that you have a bit of a bias yourself, could it?

 

[Silverplum]

I don't see anything wrong with the question.

On THIS board? Yes, there's something wrong with it. This board is for REAL legal questions.

If you hate Nancy Grace, go tell her so. Why would we care??

 

[fairisfair]

If a juror is influenced by an outside source such as Nancy Grace, and is not basing his/her decision in a case on the merits of the case itself and the evidence presented, the juror is doing a major disservice to the defendant. They would make a lousy juror - hopefully anyone like that would be "weeded out" of the jury pool prior to any trial.

Plus, juries are NOT comprised of mostly women. In addition, I know of no woman who is a "Stepford wife". Women seem to have minds of their own and will not be overly influenced by some TV host.

and of course all of us here would agree with everything and anything that Quincy says. Since we are silly little girls; and he is a man.

 

[quincy]

. . . says fairisfair, who disagrees with Quincy frequently.

Thank goodness there are no Stepford wives on this forum!

 

[applecruncher]

How would you know wether or not she's ever been sued?

Not all women love Nancy Grace. I find her rather annoying. But she's a TV personality/commentator, and they say a lot of things. Ratings, etc. And they have legal depts to deal with disgruntled people.

If you don't like her, turn the channel.

 

[quincy]

Nancy Grace is being sued currently, over the suicide of a woman Nancy Grace interviewed, the interview of which played on CNN immediately after the death. The family of the woman blames Nancy Grace's harsh treatment of this woman for the suicide. The suit, however, is not for defamation.

And I agree, applecruncher. Turning the channel is an easy solution, but one people don't seem to consider much. They would much rather try to ban what appears on TV based on their own likes and dislikes, than to simply allow others the freedom to view what they want. The same goes for people trying to ban books they find objectionable. It's a puzzling human trait.