Check out this nutjob. (http://p2pnet.net/story/12138) Since when is linking to a site considered libel? This guy in Canada says that linking to a published article about him and making comments on the article counts as libel.
Um...
:wtf
I can't even make heads or tails of that article except that someone is suing people and kazaa settled. :U
here's the basics.
The guy in the above linked article wrote an article about how this other site is being sued. The guy doing the suing believe that an unaltered statement of fact is libel for some unknown reason, despite the fact that libel is defined as printed or written lies [about the person being libeled]
Personal opinion and fact do not fall in to this catagory, only information that is stated as fact but is false(and, typically, damaging) are libel.
In other words, I can say all I want that I think this guy is a nutter, so long as I don't make the claim that he is as a point of fact.
If I had proof that he is loopier than a rollercoaster, I could say it as a statement of fact, and it would not be libel because it would be true.
As suing someone requires a legal document be filed, and you can't get any more concrete evidence in a legal sense than a legal document, I don't see how a court could take him seriously.
Originally, he was being sued for defemation for revealing court procedings, but that's not defemation for the same reason the above isn't libel. If it's fact then it isn't defemation.
Now, if these articles were detailing false procedings or relaying misinformation, then there would be a case, but I don't care to dig around and see if that's so.
Legal mumbo jumbo... :bunnycry
Not only does it have to be damaging, it has to be significantly damaging to a majority of a particular group. So, theoretically, if someone wrote something libelous in a church bulliten about someone who did not attend that church, it would be nearly impossible to prove libel. If it was about someone in that church, it would be a different story- it just depends on the person's spheres of influence, how big they are, and how they cross.
Additionally, if the person is a public figure, such as a movie star or a politician, the rules are much more difficult, as they put themselves out for public scrutiny much more.
Yarg...Nuff said
Quote from: Damaris on May 10, 2007, 11:48:30 PMNot only does it have to be damaging, it has to be significantly damaging to a majority of a particular group. So, theoretically, if someone wrote something libelous in a church bulliten about someone who did not attend that church, it would be nearly impossible to prove libel.
I've never heard this. I know that it has to be something that damages someone's reputation, if that's what you mean.
If I claimed that you had been arrested for patronizing an integrated lunch counter, and I made that claim at Tuskegee University, that probably wouldn't be libel.
If I made the same claim at a KKK rally, it might be.
Still, if I claimed that you had been arrested for biting off the head of a bat live in concert in my local parish bulletin, I'm pretty sure that that would still be libel, since most people in that group would consider it damaging to your reputation.
Quote from: Damaris on May 10, 2007, 11:48:30 PMAdditionally, if the person is a public figure, such as a movie star or a politician, the rules are much more difficult, as they put themselves out for public scrutiny much more.
If you're a national politician, you effectively have no way to sue for libel. That's why John Kerry couldn't sue the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I can claim that every morning, John Cornyn grinds up babies to add to his cocaine before he snorts it off the foot of a recently deceased hooker, but since he's a public figure, he can't sue me.
There are also limited public figures. For example, I can say that the McDonald's coffee lady was trying to game the system (she wasn't) because that's related to how she is publicly known to the nation, but I can't call her a murderer.
per my media law book:
"At least a sginificant minority of the commuinity must believe that the plaintiff's reputation has been damaged, by the minority must not be an unrepresentative minority."
The example the book gives is an incarserated gentleman who was suing the media for calling him an "alleged FBI informant" stating that it would hurt his repuatation in jail. It was ruled that it was not libel, as the general public would most likely not think less of him. To quote their summery "The defamation must lower a person's reputation in the eyes of a significant number of people, and unless unusual circumstances exist, these people must fairly reflect representative view."
So I was wrong on the majority, but not wrong on the point. If someone says something damaging about you in a church bullitin of a church you do not attend, the likelihood of severe damage to your reputation, deprivation of social contact, or the loss of ability to hold or obtain a job are probably not going to happen, and at least one of those must be proved to win the case.
Additionally, public figures do have recourse for suing for libel- they have to prove malice, however, which makes the case much more difficult, but not impossible.
Interestingly, there was a case law run back in NZ for libel, with a friend of mine as the defendant.
Basically, the defendant said, on a mailing list, that the plaintiff was using threat of legal action to muzzle dissent. Shortly thereafter, he was done for libel...
Interesting curlicues like, the mailing list was for the domain management company's non-profit single shareholder organisation (now there's a mouthful), the plaintiff was the CEO of the domain management company, and the plaintiff's action was being funded by the domain management company...
So you get the company suing it's shareholder on behalf of the CEO. Tell me that makes sense...
What's worse is the general opinion of pretty much everyone I spoke to about it all was agreed that the defendant's words didn't lower their opinion of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's actions did... :-/
(apologies for the circumlocution, but names probably shouldn't be named, etc - although from what I've said, it's probably easy enough to find out the folks involved...)
Sometimes I wonder what the lawyers and judges are smoking, I really do.
In those cases I tend to rename people. Bob, Steve, and Judy are my three favorites.
Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on May 11, 2007, 01:33:01 PM
Sometimes I wonder what the lawyers and judges are smoking, I really do.
It's a mixture of shredded pages from old law books, money, and laser printer toner. :3
The problem with libel laws is that they're often used to shield the unethical and damagining comments of others.
For instance, someone calls you a bitch, makes misogynist comments and jokes, belittles all woment, and gets everyone in his or her circle to agree with them. You refer the group as disciminating against women in the local newspaper. BAM that's libel and defamation of caharacter, because too many people agree with sexist comments instead. Meanwhile, they still get to refer to you as a because that's an "opinion"
Tell me how calling someone a chauvanist is more damaging than calling someone a nasty name. Personally, I'd rather be called a criminal than a slur. I can disprove the fact that I am a criminal. The slur, on the other hand, damages forever based on the whim of the majority,
As a white man, I have little to fear from slurs. The law component, though... Keep it far away, plz. I don't know what constitutes libel, but I am sure I've attempted it several times here!
It would only be libel if anyone paid attention to you, Netami. ;-]
(well.. paid attention, and let your words influence their opinion negatively. Actually... I wonder if you can sue someone for -improving- your reputation?)
False advertising!
Quote from: Damaris on May 11, 2007, 12:42:35 PMIf someone says something damaging about you in a church bullitin of a church you do not attend, the likelihood of severe damage to your reputation, deprivation of social contact, or the loss of ability to hold or obtain a job are probably not going to happen, and at least one of those must be proved to win the case.
I would think that severe damage to your reputation could be claimed, especially since, if the bulletin got back to you, it was likely to get into the hands of other people who know you.
possibly, but not necessarily. It really depends on what was said, and how crazy the church was. If they're passing around that you eat babies, how likely is it that people outside the church would believe them. And, something "terrible" to a particular church is likely to be all "whatever" to other people. It depends on you, your friends, the church, and what exactly they say.