Actually, no intent to harm is necessary. All it takes is a communication,
published (spoken or written) as a communication of fact (as opposed to
opinion) concerning a person which is proved to be false and which is
defamatory. The communication must be made to one or more persons who
understand the statement of fact to be defamatory and to apply to the
plaintiff. The defendant must also have made the false statement either
intentionally or negligently and the false statement must cause harm to the
plaintiff. Fascinating, huh?
Truth is (in the US, anyway) always a complete defense - but not to hurt
feelings. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything. Seems like a
good rule of thumb.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Riddle [mailto:dave@microworks.net]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:09 PM
To: fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Public Access To FOT Dialog
I can't help you with your first question, but I would think in regards to
your second question that you would be protected (if you're here in the US)
under the First Amendment as long as you what you are reporting is your
experience or what you have heard. For someone to make a case of libel or
slander (written or verbal) is a pretty high bar to cross that must show
that not only did you knowingly say or report that which you knew to be
false and but that did so with the intent to harm.
At 02:43 PM 12/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>FOTers
>
> When doing a Google search today, I was surprised to find references
>to specific dialogs taking place within team.net archives. I am wondering how
>much of the FOT dialog is publicly available in the archives?
>
> Secondly, in consideration of this public access, how careful do we
>need to be about providing candid and frank criticisms of specific
>products/companies ? Do we avoid our comments being recorded if we respond
>directly to the FOT person rather than cc: the whole FOT group ?
>
>Cary
|