Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2

    Default Malicious but True Posting

    My question involves defamation in the state of: california. Can i be held libel for posting an unflattering truth about someone on a social network's home page who lives in another state?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toledo, OH
    Posts
    16,307

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    They can certainly sue you - understand that suing is far different from prevailing.

    The truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation. Of course, the question is, if you're so worried about being sued for telling this "unflattering truth", why would you go to the trouble?

    If it doesn't directly affect you, let it go.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    Quote Quoting gnice40
    View Post
    My question involves defamation in the state of: california. Can i be held libel for posting an unflattering truth about someone on a social network's home page who lives in another state?
    You say "Malicious" then true also? Which is it? Even the truth is not an absolute defense to libel as it can also be done with a "reckless disregard for the truth", this can mean Malice is attatched.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    Quote Quoting gnice40
    View Post
    My question involves defamation in the state of: california. Can i be held libel for posting an unflattering truth about someone on a social network's home page who lives in another state?
    Then, of course, there's the question of whether or not you can prove it. Most states place the burden of proving the truth of a damaging writing on the defendant. In all the law of torts, this is one of the only places where a defendant ordinarily bears the burden of proof.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Key West, FL
    Posts
    2,350

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    In addition to libel/defamation to which truth is a complete defense, most states also recognize other related torts such as invasion of privacy or public disclosure of private facts. Truth is not an issue so much in that case.

    In any case, it is extremely expensive and complicated to pursue such a case, and even more so to do it from another state. I doubt there is anything to worry about.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    It's not directly on point, and I am not in your state, but in a fairly well publicized case in my state, a defamation case was allowed to go forward even though the defendent could prove truth, based solely on the malice involved in the release of the information.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    The elements of a claim for invasion of privacy based upon the disclosure of private facts in California are, in general, (1) public disclosure (2) of a private fact (3) which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person and (4) which is not of legitimate public concern. However, a First Amendment defense that can be raised under federal case law decided after that tort was formulated, and it's particularly strong for media defendants. The laws of the other state involved may also be relevant.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Key West, FL
    Posts
    2,350

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    The OP may or may not be a "media" defendant. I would tend to doubt it.

    I doubt if the protections afforded the media apply to an individual whose motives are revenge or otherwise based on malice. If someone is warning the public, perhaps a freedom of speech argument can be made.

    Also, the source of the information may have bearing.

    On the other hand, few individuals have the resources to sure over these torts and when suing an individual rather than an entity with deep pockets, it is impossible to do it on contingency.

    Even suing a media defendant and having a very good case, it is virtually impossible to find an attorney who will do such a case on contingency.

    Thus, all things considered, the OP has nothing to worry about in my view.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    Quote Quoting LawResearcherMissy
    View Post
    They can certainly sue you - understand that suing is far different from prevailing.

    The truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation. Of course, the question is, if you're so worried about being sued for telling this "unflattering truth", why would you go to the trouble?

    If it doesn't directly affect you, let it go.
    That's just it. It does involve me. I'm putting myself on the chopping block here too.

    Quote Quoting gnice40
    View Post
    That's just it. It does involve me. I'm putting myself on the chopping block here too.
    . I was threatened with police action. I'm just wondering how far I can go legally.

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    The elements of a claim for invasion of privacy based upon the disclosure of private facts in California are, in general, (1) public disclosure (2) of a private fact (3) which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person and (4) which is not of legitimate public concern. However, a First Amendment defense that can be raised under federal case law decided after that tort was formulated, and it's particularly strong for media defendants. The laws of the other state involved may also be relevant.
    Thank u for your imput. This is a private fact but it also involves me too. Does that make it any different because the malicious posting directly involves me too

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: Malicious but True Posting

    Thank u for your imput. This is a private fact but it also involves me too. Does that make it any different because the malicious posting directly involves me too
    How do you know it's a "private fact" within the meaning of tort law? Legal words sometimes mean something different than what they mean in ordinary usage. It might help if you can give some clue about the nature of the information published, how you came to know the information, etc.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. The True Biological Father
    By MomInNeedOfHelp in forum Paternity Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 03:39 PM
  2. True
    By zedex in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 06:29 PM
  3. Defamation: Can You Say Bad Things If They Are True?
    By legallychallenged in forum Defamation, Slander And Libel
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-03-2008, 10:59 AM
  4. Debt Collectors: Too Good To Be True?
    By MLT in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 09:01 AM
  5. Defamation: Possible Liability for Posting True Allegations On a Website
    By tessieanne in forum Defamation, Slander And Libel
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2006, 05:28 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources