A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.

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 ...


22

In addition to the other answer which, correctly, notes that the publisher is more likely to be in a position of being able to pay any damages awarded, there is one other good reason to sue the publisher rather than the journalist... The journalist cannot print a retraction or correction with the same reach as the original article - only the publisher can ...


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 ...


15

English Law answer: Both the newspaper that published and the individual who wrote the defamatory statement may be sued for defamation. You may choose to sue one or sue both as co-defendants. The most common reason to sue the publication over the individual writer is because the publication is more likely to pay damages.


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 ...


5

If you sued the reporter alone, and he has any insurance, the insurance company will certainly force the newspaper to sit at the defense table as a co-defendant. The newspaper has deeper pockets and was ultimately responsible for editing and selecting the reporter's article for publication. Further, the newspaper may willingly leap to the defendant's ...


5

Whether they are public figures or not, you are legally permitted to photograph anyone you want, and you are free to write about anyone you want. This includes union oficials and shop stewards. Of course, this does not mean that there are no restrictions in how you photograph or write about someone. You may not break into someone's house to take a picture ...


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. ...


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

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.


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 ...


2

Defamatory statements are not defined in terms of why a person makes them (otherwise, there would be no defamation because everybody comes up with some reason other than pure hatred). In this scenario, the review is not defamatory, it is a statement of personal opinion (I presume there were no false accusations that the appetizer was a plate of dead rat). ...


2

For the statement to be defamatory, it must also be false. The statement is literally true because it states that plaintiff moves out of the state, which you stipulate is true. Case dismissed. However, one might argue that the statement implies another false statement, something like "B moved out of state in order to avoid a criminal summons". If 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 ...


1

Money - The Washington Post has a lot more than any writer who wrote the disputed article. The suit is seeking compensation that equates to the price paid by Amazon to aquire the Washington Post ($250 million) which is not something the lone writer of the article could afford. Furthermore, while the writer did write the alleged libelous article, ...


1

What constitutes written malice? how does one cross the line between insulting a public figure you don't like and writing something that constitutes "malice"? The term "actual malice" has a particular meaning under defamation law and should not be confused with the more generic notion of ill will that occurs in other wrongs. Actual malice is a defamer's ...


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

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

How many counts of libel for the false statement: “John is at-large from assault charges”? John may plead his claim(s) either way, but the choice is largely inconsequential to the issue of recovery. There is no such thing of "x dollars per claim of defamatory falsehood", especially where the falsehoods are as intertwined as in the example you outline. What ...


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

Pedophile - noun Psychiatry. an adult who is sexually attracted to young children. You'll note that this does not describe any illegal action; attraction is worrying and often leads to illegal activity, but it is not illegal in and of itself. Calling someone a "pedophile" is no different than calling someone schizophrenic, psychopathic, autistic, or any ...


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 ...


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