truth is a defense against libel -- but what exactly has to be true?

[Proserpina]

They're actually notoriously difficult for a regular person to litigate. And expensive.

Think years (time-wise) and many tens of thousands (cost-wise).

This is also why the majority of successful suits involve (ironically*) celebrities or other well-known figures, where a decent pay-off is expected.

* the irony of course comes from the fact that celebrities and the like actually have less protection than us regular folk. Yet theirs are generally the only viable cases.

One bit of wisdom provided by another of my favourite judges, is this:

1. If you win, expect nothing to change
2. If you lose, expect nothing to change

In other words, even if there is a hefty pay-off and - gosh! - a retraction (which does not have to be front page, either - think teeny little paragraph on page 2 just below the weight-loss ads), it can't wipe away what was said, the damage isn't going away and most people will still believe the original accusation (largely because we're part of a lovely "no smoke without fire" society).

The End.

 

[army judge]

The litigation brought by an allegedly defamed person often brings more attention to the purportedly damaging material than did the original revelation!

Ironic, sardonic or what?

 

[Proserpina]

There is that, too

Defamation cases = dirty laundry ALL OVER the place, accessible to anyone who'd like to know.

 

[amethyst]

Prosperina said: >> Given that you're not understanding the issue at all, I shall gracefully bow out of the discussion

That's unprofessionally aggressive Prosperina, and I'm afraid Prosperina, that it is you who are either not understanding the issue, or at this point pretending not to understand it. You claim that an accurate report of speech, with attribution to the source, is immune to libel, given that the report of the speech is provably true. This is clear. I understood that issue from the beginning before I came to the site and it is the very issue I am bringing up from the beginning. I have provided two sources which I believe to be authoritative, the Digital Media Law Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, who are very clearly disagreeing with you. You have not addressed this disagreement, except to respond with obvious aggression towards the person questioning your opinion.

The most reasonable conclusion is that you are simply wrong, and are giving poor-quality legal opinion here, which you are defending with aggression.

I'm going with the experts: a quote of another party, even if accurate and attributed to its source, does not in fact grant immunity to libel in the United States.

Back to the subject of the entire thread: my conclusion is that it is the defamatory material itself which must be true, for an iron-clad defense against libel. It is not enough that a quote is true, in the sense that the quotation is accurate, despite what Prosperina and others are claiming.

 

[cbg]

^^^Translation: I found someone who said what I wanted to hear, and I'm going with that.

 

[amethyst]

More unprofessionalism from site 'moderators'. Can't you discuss the issues civilly and professionally? I don't 'want to hear' anything, I want to find out what is correct. The door is still open to disputing the matter in a professional manner.

It is the role of moderators to keep a site civil. I'm finding presumed 'moderators' here with trolling tendencies, behaving aggressively towards people who merely question their opinions.

 

[Proserpina]

If you're going to rant, please at least use the correct user-names.

Thanks!

 

[amethyst]

I have no attention of ranting, Proserpina. But I will bring the bad behavior of renegade 'moderators' and 'supermoderators' to the attention of the administrators, because moderators to an extent represent an organization. The response of administration will determine how professional and reputable I consider this whole outfit.

You may be fooling yourselves, but those who are looking on are not fooled. Your bad and unprofessional behavior is obvious.

 

[cbg]

You just go right ahead and do that, amethyst.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

>> Keep in mind that the republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).

( I am not allowed to post the link yet on this forum, but you can find it easily by doing a google search on the quote. It's from Digital Media Law Project.)

This seems to support my contention that the defense of 'truth' is not absolute depending on what exactly is examined for 'truth'. In the light of this, it seems that Alice is indeed exposed to a defamation lawsuit against Bob, even though she may have accurately quoted or reported something.

When discussing emotional issues like this, it's difficult to move how you feel out of the way of logic. I've read the statements and they are all consistent. I'll try to make things clear.

"Keep in mind that the republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source."

What this statement says is that republication MAY make one liable, not that it DOES make one liable. It all depends upon the specific circumstances of the case. If you write in an email that someone at the scene of an accident said the driver was drunk - it's not defamation even if the driver was not drunk. Truth is a defense. If it wasn't, then people could be sued for merely repeating what someone else said, which would lead to an absurd conclusion. There can be other reasons why someone may be liable for damages, e.g. the statement cast someone in a false light even though the statements themselves may be true. This would depend upon state law. Now with regard to the act itself, my understanding would be that just because a statement is true doesn't mean you are immune from liability under other causes of action or special circumstances.

With regard to whom Bob intends to sue - who is it? If an official report said what it said, you won't be able to sue any news reports that published that fact.Here is an example of New York State law, which specifically creates an "immunity" in this circumstance.

§ 74. Privileges in action for libel. A civil action cannot be maintained against any person, firm or corporation, for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding, or for any heading of the report which is a fair and true headnote of the statement published. This section does not apply to a libel contained in any other matter added by any person concerned in the publication; or in the report of anything said or done at the time and place of such a proceeding which was not a part thereof.

So that's my take on the issue. You may not be "immune" from all liability but that's the extent of what it means to say.