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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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