RE: Lawsuit Question

by Ben Ocean <beno(at)cnw.com>

Date:	Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:09:28 -0700
To:	"Cynthia Hamilton" <subscribe(at)actionhost.net>
Cc:	hwg-basics(at)hwg.org
References:
	todo: View Thread, Original

At 02:45 PM 6/19/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Okay - from a former lawyer who hasn't reviewed this stuff for a while (so
>consult an attorney before acting on this):
>
>Libel is:
>
>1. FALSE
>2. Statement of FACT (not an opinion)
>3. about the person suing
>4.  that is Published (in writing)
>5.  And causes damage to
>   a.  a person's reputation
>   b.  a person's income.
>
>All elements must proven in court.
>
>The person who makes the statement as well as anyone who knowingly repeats
>the statement can be held liable.  (Hummmmmmm - would this apply to everyone
>that "replied" to the e-mail and didn't delete the original statements?)  I
>don't think a list-owner could be liable because of the knowledge element.
>I'm not sure.
>
>The standard used is a "reasonable person" test - would a reasonable person
>find the statements to be false, about the person suing and that they caused
>damage.  If the person suing is the only person that interprets the
>statements that way, it would be hard to prove the case.
>
>There is also something called a "SLAPP" suit - Strategic Lawsuit Against
>Public Participation - used by some to slap down the free speech of others
>it finds annoying.  Often used by developers against environmentalists who
>try to speak out against the development killing an endangered species, but
>also by bullies. I was sued once for $10 million by someone trying to
>"discourage" me from testifying against him in a federal investigation.
>Eventually he had to pay us (and he suffered heavy penalties from the feds.)
>
>In the instant case, because of Ben's behavior on this list (and this isn't
>the first time he's behaved in this manner), it would be hard to prove that
>his reputation has been damaged or that he's lost business because of this.
>Also, he would have to prove falsity of the statements and that they weren't
>opinion.  In California, we have a strong anti-SLAPP statute that makes the
>filer of the suit pay attorney's fees if the court finds the suit to be an
>attempt to inhibit free speech.  I believe other states have these statutes
>as well.

You really want to go there?
BenO

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA