Re: Libel/slander (Was: Re: South Creek Nursery Palmyra NY14522)

In a message dated 1/10/2000 11:59:39 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
skinnerd@NETTALLY.COM writes:

<< I am not an attorney, but I certainly cannot see any ground for such a
 lawsuit unless the contributor made false statements about the mail
 order company with intent of malice. >>

David, you raise a good point. The real problem is that whenever one makes a
statement about a lawyer, doctor, candlestick maker, etc. -- that impacts on
the person's ability to earn a living, that is considered not just libel, but
"libel per se". There are a few categories that are considered libel per se
and for which malice is presumed, and need not be proven. One such is posting
a note in your grocery store saying "John Brown is a deadbeat". Another is
accusing someone of committing a crime, which is why you see the word
"alleged" in fron of "murderer" or "thief" in newspapers until after the
conviction. Another is accusing someone of having poor morals.

The statements must be false, as truth is a defense, but the burden is on the
speaker to prove the truth (to make his/her defense).  And of course, there
is the public person exception -- which we all saw at work in the impeachment
proceedings. We can say anything we want to say about a public person.

Frankly, I can't see anyone filing or winning a lawsuit, despite the overly
litigious world we live in (all the fault of lawyers and opportunists). But I
thought the topic worth mentioning, as a precaution. If there are other means
of obtaining the information, why not use them?

I agree with other writers . . . everybody has a bad day now and then . . .
why ruin someone's business by complaining when you don't know if you the
exception rather than the rule.

One thing we all need to observe is that "If it sounds too good to be true,
it ain't". If plants are too cheap, there is probably a good reason for it.

Jeanne Hannah
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index