...if poster2 were to make malicous statements that would be defamatory if the identify of poster1 is made known by some other unrelated action?
...if poster2 were to make malicous statements that would be defamatory if the identify of poster1 is made known by some other unrelated action?
Yes.
No.
Maybe.
You've given absolutely no information. For example, your location is required.![]()
Sorry about that, just thought adding more info would complicate the question.
Poster2 makes false statements on the internet where the entire world can read it. Poster1's identity is revealed by a third party to the entire world. Poster1 suffers due to past statements made by Poster2. Poster1 wants to sue in his state of residence - Utah.
How has Poster 1 suffered?
Can Poster 1 afford a costly (think several years and tens of thousands of dollars) court battle? With very little chance of collecting?
Good questions. Not sure I have an answer for the first one. Let's say Poster1 just wants to get even because Poster2 out right lied.
Q2 - No, not much money at all. From that I gather it's better for Poster1 to just move on.
Thanks for the help.
As a general rule, even if the victim's state recognizes defamation per se (which means tangible damages do not have to be proven) such an action is generally prohibitively expensive to litigate for the normal citizen.
Attorneys don't do these pro bono, and very few will take a defamation case on contingency.
Getting even isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Sometimes the best way to get even is to simply ignore the twit who's posted the offending material.