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 ...


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

Nope, depending on jurisdiction. In general, he can be sued for both torts, but the corporation can also be sued for the book. In practice, it will also be sued for the statement, which will be construed as an attempt to promote the book. The general rule is that anyone may be held liable for their own tortious misconduct. It may be that other people can ...


2

B would not commit libel by publishing that ad. Throughout the United States, truth is at the least a defense to libel. If the statement in question is false, the speaker's intent is relevant. If the statement in question is true, the speaker's intent is not relevant. Nor would the statement constitute a privacy violation. The relevant tort would be public ...


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

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

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

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

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 ...


1

Can I create such a list by using company names? Yes. There is nothing inherently wrong with ranking lists. Can a company sue me because I listed them on the bottom? I will assume your jurisdiction is somewhere in the U.S., where defamation law is quite uniform (although not really enforced nowadays) across states. As long as you refrain from ...


1

Is publication of an unpaid debt considered to be libelous? Can person B publish these facts in a newspaper ad without being guilty of libel? The disclosure of person A's delinquency is indistinguishable from a disclosure that a party has breached a contract of which the underlying good (or service) provided is different than money (or the lending thereof)...


1

Merely mentioning the name of a famous singer and songs that the singer has written does not violate any intellectual property right of any kind.


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