At 3:26 PM -0500 4/1/00, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> John Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Phill Hallam-Baker is mentioned as having been required
>>in a separate 1994 case to pay a "substantial" amount to
>>Godfrey for libel.
>
>
>I'd be interested as well to see what Phill said. Also I wonder
>what "substantial" means?
>
>I can't say I'm surprised that Phill had to make a payout. Phill
>over the years has made several rather boorish statements about me
>in various public forums. For my "crime" of supporting the 2nd
>amendment Phill has used language such as "crazed bunch of whackos"
>and referring to me by name "I don't believe that you are an
>individual who should be permitted to own a firearm. I don't think
>you use it for hunting, I think you use it as a prop for your ego."
>Phill has also questioned in veiled and not so veiled language as to
>my mental heath, at one point he publicly worried that "scarry
>friends of mine might pay him a visit" etc.
>
>Now that you bring up this Godfrey matter I can see the similarities.
Yes, but this is the Internet, and with both you and Phil's
longstanding reputations, it's easy to discount ridiculous hyperbole.
I doubt anyone take Phill seriously enough that you'd have any case.
I must confess that, if asked, I'd have to testify that I consider
Phill's opinion on such issues as gun rights to be so laughable that
I could not in good faith claim his statements were libelous, for a
key component of libel is credibility.
