Libel and Slander

[El Diablo]

RJ,

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation charges, which covers both libel and slander.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...efamation.html

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
RJ,

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation charges, which covers both libel and slander.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...efamation.html

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

[/ QUOTE ]

well done my friend. just making sure that from now on posters know better than to make outrageous lawsuit threats. oh, well, except for you and i, we can proceed.

rj

[tuq]

RJ,

Trust me, you'd get your feelings hurt way before you'd ever consider being litiguous. You're old school like that.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
im not really all that thrilled about that definition because it doesnt include untruth. newspapers writing about bill clinton getting head from his intern damaged his reputation, but were true, making them NOT libel. again, in the situation i was discussing, we must realize that the key distinction between libel and non libel is "false" not "damaging someones reputation", if someones reputation is damaged because of something they did, it would be their own fault no? this is where im confused. 2p2 and many posters dont seem to agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

A cause of action, meaning a valid claim, for libel or slander has a number of elements that must be met.

For instance for libel it must be a 1) false statement 2) publication to a third party and 3) damaging to one's reputation.

All three elements must be met for a successful cause of action.

Here are some additional resources link

and link

Care to tell us what prompts the query? It has the makings of a good story. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im not really all that thrilled about that definition because it doesnt include untruth. newspapers writing about bill clinton getting head from his intern damaged his reputation, but were true, making them NOT libel. again, in the situation i was discussing, we must realize that the key distinction between libel and non libel is "false" not "damaging someones reputation", if someones reputation is damaged because of something they did, it would be their own fault no? this is where im confused. 2p2 and many posters dont seem to agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

A cause of action, meaning a valid claim, for libel or slander has a number of elements that must be met.

For instance for libel it must be a 1) false statement 2) publication to a third party and 3) damaging to one's reputation.

All three elements must be met for a successful cause of action.

Here are some additional resources link

and link

Care to tell us what prompts the query? It has the makings of a good story. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

one guy on my basketball team used to say this a lot, and it fits well here.

IF YOU DONT ALREADY KNOW, YOU NEVER WILL!

rj

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to tell us what prompts the query? It has the makings of a good story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some blog entry. I have it in "my history," (I must have clicked on it yesterday but not read it) but I have to admit, I can't really follow it.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to tell us what prompts the query? It has the makings of a good story. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

one guy on my basketball team used to say this a lot, and it fits well here.

IF YOU DONT ALREADY KNOW, YOU NEVER WILL!

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

I know and I've been all over this site trying to get the skinny. Even been doing google searches and reading people's blogs and myspace pages for a clue. But no luck.

BTW, other similar sayings that I like:

Three can keep a secret if two are dead.

Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say.

[Freerollin`]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im not really all that thrilled about that definition because it doesnt include untruth. newspapers writing about bill clinton getting head from his intern damaged his reputation, but were true, making them NOT libel. again, in the situation i was discussing, we must realize that the key distinction between libel and non libel is "false" not "damaging someones reputation", if someones reputation is damaged because of something they did, it would be their own fault no? this is where im confused. 2p2 and many posters dont seem to agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

A cause of action, meaning a valid claim, for libel or slander has a number of elements that must be met.

For instance for libel it must be a 1) false statement 2) publication to a third party and 3) damaging to one's reputation.

All three elements must be met for a successful cause of action.

Here are some additional resources link

and link

Care to tell us what prompts the query? It has the makings of a good story. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

one guy on my basketball team used to say this a lot, and it fits well here.

IF YOU DONT ALREADY KNOW, YOU NEVER WILL!

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Knockwurst, you should sue rj for libelling and slandering your feelings. Truth has nothing to do with it, he shouldn't have been so mean.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Knockwurst, you should sue rj for libelling and slandering your feelings. Truth has nothing to do with it, he shouldn't have been so mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naaah,

I just like a good story, especially when it involves some twoplustwo drama, but it ain't really any of my business.

[SackUp]

While truth is a defense to libel and slander, it is a not a defense to "public disclosure of private facts." This is an invasion of privacy tort and not a defamation tort.

The name of the tort basically explains what it is. If you take someone's private facts and make them public, they can sue.

I'm pretty sure it is hard to use though as often the information is public knowledge or not that private. I do not know how often it is listed as a cause of action - but it is a tort on the CA bar.