The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.

Hot answers tagged

23

Defamation requires communication to a third-party I can say (or write) anything I want about a person directly to that person and, unless it is a threat, they have no recourse at all. I can call them a liar, a thief, a Nazi, or a goat fornicator. Of course, I have to be careful – calling them a “bastard” might be a slur on their mother communicated to a ...


16

Dale M's answer pretty much covers it, but it sounds like this is a case of misunderstanding by the former employee rather than an actionable accusation. The way you have edited the documents will not harm his defence - if the details you removed are considered relevant, the court will order you to produce unedited documents. At that point, reproducing the ...


8

Calling a person a pedophile is not legal in a strict sense (ignoring for now if he is factually a pedophile; if he is, it's not illegal since it's true) because a statement like that is considered libel per se, or is clearly libelous on its face. Libel is defamation and defined as a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's ...


4

People saying things like that is routine in legal proceedings. It sounds like he's not so interested in defaming you as trying to challenge the data. The right to challenge the validity of data is the foundation of the British style legal system, and it's in America's Constitution. Any judge in a civilized country should jealously protect that right. ...


4

Yes, a statement made to only a single other person can be defamation, at least in the US (you don't mention the jurisdiction that you or the accused person are in, and it may matter). Only the accused person can normally sue, and that person would need to establish that the statement was made, and that it was false. In most cases actual damage to ...


2

Can I sue someone for publicly calling me a sex offender if I'm not one? Yes. However, in this particular case you need to take a preliminary step regardless of your jurisdiction, which I assume is somewhere in the U.S. Prior to filing any complaint (and I will repeat this below), it is in your best interest that you demand a retraction and removal of the ...


2

Legally there is no problem. What you say is protected speech under the 1st Amendment as long as it is either true or a matter of opinion. However Ron Beyer's comment is a good one; while legal this sounds very inadvisable. You would be far better off hiring a lawyer. The Mr Dicks of this world make money from the widespread fear of legal action. He will ...


2

So for each scenario (In all scenarios, John Doe is Evil is a false statement): Not Libel at all. Sensational at best. Here you are seeking verification of someone else allegation. You may have formed an opinion already and are looking for validation of that opinion OR you are looking for other sources to better form your opinion. There is no ...


2

No, you didn't make a false statement about him, you expressed a personal opinion which is neither true nor false. Defamation isn't defined in terms of "where you publish the statement", it simply is about publishing a statement, which is damaging, and which is false.


2

For a public figure in united-states, the standard is actual malice: “that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) A newspaper can be negligent in checking its information, but it can’t be reckless. It would be reckless for a newspaper to publish a ...


2

What are the legal implications of all of this? Person B has a viable claim of defamation for statements falsely attributed to him. If the false representations are severe by falsely attributing to him felonies or moral turpitude, it is defamation per se and therefore person B is not required to prove damages. In order to be awarded more than nominal ...


1

We can't know whether it's legal, because it's legal if it's true, regardless of whether he has been formally accused or convicted. But in the absence of a conviction or publicly available evidence, we can't know whether it's true. We also can't know why anyone making that statement is doing so. They might be making the calculation you suggest, or they ...


1

Generally, no A limited purpose public figure must have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved" to be a public figure. Merely being a CEO doesn’t do this. Being a CEO at the heart of controversy like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or Volkswagen’s Martin Winterkorn does.


1

should I ask the publisher of the statement what facts she relied on in deposition or via interrogatory? Short answer: Yes, and you do it through deposition, not through written interrogatories. Long answer: That is one of the most elementary and obvious questions a defamation plaintiff should formulate. But follow-up questions are significantly more ...


1

Yes State action Finding the person to prosecute is difficult but that is one of the major functions of law enforcement agencies. ISPs and VPN providers are, in some jurisdictions, required to keep metadata which is available to law enforcement either with or without a warrant depending on local law. Law enforcement agencies have varying levels of ...


1

Is it legal to call someone a pedophile without a conviction? It depends, as the other answers have explained. I will add that a conviction is not indispensable for referring to someone as pedophile or criminal. What matters is whether the publisher has sufficient, objective grounds supporting his communication(s) that a person committed a specific crime. ...


1

In the UK it is illegal to say that someone has committed a crime when in fact, they havent. Having sex with a child is illegal. Therefore, claiming that someone has is illegal, unless of course, the claim is true. The question then becomes: does calling someone a pedophile amount to claiming that they have committed a crime? It probably depends on the ...


1

None of the above utterances are defamatory, because they do not refer to a damaging fact. If you replace "is evil" with something that refers to a fact, you might distinguish the cases. It would be defamation just in case you assert a false and damaging claim. Replace "is evil" with "murdered his parents". Asking if Doe murdered his parents does not assert ...


1

Tell me why this idea is okay legally and may pressure Mr. Dick to pay me what I am owed or why this is an incredibly stupid thing to do! That is neither legally nor businesswise stupid. I'm assuming that you would Cc your former employer in those communications (since otherwise he would not know this additional reason as to why he needs to mend his ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible