Public Posting About My Husband's Cheating Girlfriend

[Rigby]

My question involves defamation in the state of:
I posted on Craigslist Rants and Raves about a gal that my husband got involved with recently at work. He was in a sexual relationship with her when he and she were both previously married. She prefers the company of married men (its no secret) and in a moment of elevated frustration - I posted such on Craigslist, along with the word "slut," her company name (It's a state university!) and a photo (she had posted online, herself) as well as accusing her of wasting taxpayer time sending emails about the personal details of her life (also true) on (state univ) time. Post was up for 3 days. and I took it down.

She's threatening to sue me and the guys at work are threatening to kick my husbands ass.

Can she really sue me for libel, slander or defamation?

[eerelations]

Yup, she sure can. And while she only has a 50/50 chance of winning, you will have to spend a huge amount of money defending your actions. And it will take years.

[Foster_Foster]

"Can she really sue me for libel, slander or defamation?"

Sure, but she'd need to establish damages and also that you were lying.

"He was in a sexual relationship with her when he and she were both previously married."

I gather this is a garbled way of saying he engaged in a relationship with her while married to you (the "were both previously married" part is what's tripping me up), but you don't precisely make it clear.

I wouldn't presume (eerelations) anything about what it would cost someone to defend such a suit (one isn't obligated to engage an attorney regardless of whether someone files against one in small claims or otherwise), nor the odds of whomever's chance of success based on next to zippity info, and esp. not the length of time a case would take.

We can't know from the post precisely how the posting was worded or even if she suffered damages (posting on Craigslist isn't precisely like broadcasting it on the national evening news). You're free to call someone a slut if you believe they're a slut (I don't believe in such labels myself) or a waster of taxpayer resources.

Did you post about your husband being a "slut", by the way? Did you mention him at all? If not, why not? What's more fascinating to me is that in 2012 that aggrieved spouses are still so intellectually and emotionally unevolved that they give into an(instinctive, animalistic) impulse to (mis)direct anger on someone other than the person responsible for their emotional angst (that'd be the spouse, not some (presumed) stranger who has no obligation to you).

[jk]

[QUOTE]Foster_Foster;633056]

Sure, but she'd need to establish damages and also that you were lying.

defamation per se does not require the substantiation of damages. It is presumed the defamation has caused damage. Since OP refused to include their state, it is not known if the OP's state acknowledges defamation per se.

I wouldn't presume (eerelations) anything about what it would cost someone to defend such a suit (one isn't obligated to engage an attorney regardless of whether someone files against one in small claims or otherwise), nor the odds of whomever's chance of success based on next to zippity info, and esp. not the length of time a case would take.

of course one isn't obligated to engage an attorney but unless the defendant is capable of mounting a defense on their own, it's a really good idea.

I don't know of any small claims courts that would claim jurisdiction over a defamation action.

We can't know from the post precisely how the posting was worded or even if she suffered damages (posting on Craigslist isn't precisely like broadcasting it on the national evening news)

.see above



rather than defamation, I would be more concerned with some form of harassment and intent to inflict damages in both their professional life and personal life. The post was obviously made to do exactly that. Since there was no value to the post, it becomes obvious there was an intentional attempt to cause the subject be damaged, especially since OP made a point to state where OP works.

OP is admittedly guilty of copyright infringement as well.

[aaron]

defamation per se does not require the substantiation of damages. It is presumed the defamation has caused damage. Since OP refused to include their state, it is not known if the OP's state acknowledges defamation per se.

I'm going to get a bit technical here.... Damages are a necessary element of a standard defamation action - if you cannot prove that you were damaged, you cannot sustain a claim for defamation. With defamation per se, the damage is presumed - so you can carry your case forward without providing any further proof of damage, but you still must prove your damage claim in order to recover money through the litigation.

rather than defamation, I would be more concerned with some form of harassment and intent to inflict damages in both their professional life and personal life.

For that type of claim, just as for defamation, it is important to know the state. More important, actually, because all states recognize some form of defamation claim but there's much less uniformity in relation to "invasion of privacy"-type claims.

[jk]

I'm going to get a bit technical here.... .

Oh I love it when you get all technical on me Aaron. You are welcome to do so anytime.

[tex11]

On the face of what was stated here, there appears to be little to no basis under common law to support libel per se claims. While there may be statutory grounds here for libel per se, though not likely, OP has not indicated their state. And the state in which this claim arises is very important to know in regards to per se claims and burdens of proof between plaintiff and defendant.

I would not lose any sleep over this person threatening to sue for libel, and simply ignore it until she is able to put her money where her mouth is. You removed the online posts, which is good. Unless you made any knowingly false statements which need retraction, you have pretty much done all you can or should do.

She will get a reality check from any attorney willing to take her case, such that she will be expected to ante up several thousand dollars just to get a lawsuit filed. And the expectation will be she keep that milk bucket full of $$ for her attorney. Any honest attorney should tell her she could easily lose, or end up spending far more than she may actually win, and that such a lawsuit will open her up to having a lot more of her personal life exposed than has already been done. Especially if there are truths to the statements at issue.

[Rigby]

Yes, I think she's more concerned about harassment. I'm a little concerned about harassment, myself because she actually sent 3 people to threaten to kick my husband's ass. And because she's sent me some VERY snarky emails. And to reply to someone else's comment. He was married to someone else before me and seeing her during engagement and after marriage. He's just as much of an ass. Had I known this info, I wouldnt have married him. But have 3 children now and am PISSED that she got all sneaky and he was such a dumbass to fall for it. He's not the only one. There's at least 2 other men (married) that she sneaks around with. And forwards pictures of herself to (insert snarky face and *eyebrow raise* here) them.

Copyright infringement, though? I mean - if I just cut and pasted a photo that she has posted on several very public sites?

Decided I'm not too worried. Suing me will do her more damage than us because she claims to be part of some Imperial Dynasty (which is basically an org with no political power, just a lot of pomp and circumstance) - which will be dragged through the mud if she goes forward. I think she's just royally (haha no pun intended) embarrassed for getting called to the carpet for some very shallow behavior (she's 37) and lashing out.

- - - Updated - - -

Oregon. And I havent invaded any privacy. Any information I have has been disseminated by her, to many many people and posted on public sites.

[jk]

=Rigby;633658]

Copyright infringement, though? I mean - if I just cut and pasted a photo that she has posted on several very public sites?

.[/QUOTE]

yep. That is an perfect description of how one commits copyright infringement. The photo remains hers. You can look at it all you want but once you take it and use it for your own purposes, bang, there it is.

I would not be all that concerned about it. It is not something an average person is going to chase. I tossed it out more for effect than anything. You need to stop playing games like this.

[Rigby]

Oregon. And yes, our attorney said that a case will cost her $$$ up front with little likelihood of recovery of that $$. Bummer. (read my sarcasm)

- - - Updated - - -

Yes I know. :-( I just had a weak moment when I was annoyed that her employer (The State) was unable to fire her (they tried) for spending at least 50% of her work time on personal emails and the Union insisted they reinstate her and my gripe was originally more about the union than her - I just noted the details for stinky personal drama. Veddy veddy poor judgement. Its unfortunate that I made an ass of myself. Lesson Learned. Thanks for all of the input.