If you reread my post you might realize that my point is that people should not focus so much on the status of the claimant as to the weight of their legal claim. It is precisely this ability, at least in American jurisprudence, that results in progressive changes to the law. As for there being no relationship between the specific case Roe v. Wade and 2 pornographers suing each other, sure--its 2 differing bodies of law [privacy rights and torts/fraud, respectively], but once again my point revolves around the status of the claimant and their ability to bring suit.
As for pornographers having a bias against them, Jerry Fallwell's defamation lawsuit against Larry Flynt was not helped/hurt by the fact that Larry is a pornographer. Indeed, that suit redefined the element of "malice" in defamation claims due to the heavy weight of speech rights.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kimmykim:
Interestingly enough there is NO parallel between Roe vs. Wade and one pornographer suing another.
|
[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]
[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]
[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]