On 2006-04-19 07:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-04-19 07:34:00, OverLordd wrote:
"Just because I say to be civil? :flame: I Dont want to be sued!!!"
The terrorists have won."
He's been sued.
He's probably still going through the process of learning how to slam the hell out of obnoxious people who really ought to be criticized *without* saying anything actionable.
I'm not a lawyer, consult one before you "play," this is not specific legal advice, this is all my personal layman's understanding of defamation law, which may vary from state to state.
It is not illegal to criticize rotten people.
It *is* illegal to bring a frivolous, malicious lawsuit.
When you criticize a public figure, when you state something as fact, it doesn't have to be provably true, but you *do* have to be able to prove by a "more likely than not" standard that you didn't act with reckless disregard for the truth.
Repeated and various news articles about a particular person or company can be used to establish that some person or company is a public figure, but you don't want to push it. If you push it, the judge will consider it not obvious and your complaint that a lawsuit is frivolous will go out the window.
When you criticize someone who's not a public figure, what you say has to be true. For example, I can say that *allegedly* Tranquility Bay uses restraints as an excuse to beat up kids and uses punishments that deliberately cause kids severe sunburn, putting them at lifelong increased risk of skin cancers.
I can say that WWASPS sued PURE for defamation over many allegations of child abuse and lost.
Those are facts. Those allegations have in fact been made. That lawsuit is a matter of public record. I haven't said the accusations are provably true---I very carefully haven't said it.
I can say any opinion I want *so long as I say it's my opinion*. I can say that *in my opinion* WWASPS is abusive, neglectful, and a dangerous place to send any child.
None of that is actionable.
Overlordd could have said that *in his opinion* certain allegations made against Litchfield were probably true and that he personally believed the allegations and Litchfield wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in trying to sue him.
Overlordd forgot to say the magic words "in my opinion," and that's why he could be sued and not have the suit be frivolous.
This is my opinion as far as I can tell from having read an online copy of the complaint against him. Which, iirc, was by Litchfield, but I may be mistaken.
The most essential function of free speech is that nobody is immune from criticism, so that people can decide for themselves what they think of folks accused of bad things---even when the accusation is not provable but only a suspicion or speculation. Suspicion, speculation, or opinion just has to be labeled as such.
If someone uses the magic words "in my opinion" and gets hit with a slap suit, they can countersue for malicious prosecution and bringing a frivolous lawsuit, and not only can the person suing be hit for attorney's fees but the judge can punish the lawyer for bringing the suit in the first place.
Judges rarely do that, but the more often a lawyer brings slap suits, and the more people complain of frivolous, malicious cases--when the complaint is justifiable---the more likely a judge is to get fed up and really sock it to the lawyer.
Lawyers know this. Lawyers will tell the plaintiffs about their exposure for attorney's fees.
Also, if you sue someone for saying something "in my opinion" and lose---which you will---then everybody else forever after can quote your loss of the lawsuit as a fact, which makes the allegation look true. Trying to shut them up with an obvious loser of a defamation suit makes the person suing look overly defensive and makes people wonder, quite reasonably, what they have to hide.
Avoiding legally defaming someone is not hard. You just have to know where the lines are and make an effort not to cross them.
If you accidentally cross them, then when the lawyer complains, instead of pulling your posts, you can "remove the element of intent" by *revising* the posts to clarify that what you said is either repeating someone else's allegation, and that *allegedly* the guy suing you did such and so, OR that what you said is only your personal opinion.
For example, if you say (hypothetically) "OJ Simpson is a murderer" and get a nasty lawyer letter, you can always clarify, "My opinion is that the jury got it wrong and that OJ Simpson is a murderer." The first is actionable, the second is not. Contrary to what OJ's lawyer might imply, you don't have to delete what you said to "remove the element of intent." Instead, you can clarify that OJ has been accused of murder or allegedly murdered Nicole or that it is your opinion that he murdered Nicole. Abracadabra, you're no longer defaming OJ. Abracadabra, if they keep suing you, you can tell the judge that you meant to say, always, that what you think of OJ is just your opinion, but you accidentally weren't clear and you're very sorry.
This last only works if you habitually clarify what's someone else's allegation that you're quoting, and what's your opinion, and if you genuinely slipped and weren't clear about that.
Or that you really meant to say something else that is critical but provably factual and just accidentally got some details wrong---and corrected it immediately when your inadvertent error was pointed out to you.
Newspapers do this all the time: "Allegedly," "In this reporter's opinion," "In the editorial staff's opinion," or by printing a correction in small print on the last page.
Nobody is immune from criticism. You cannot legally shut your critics up with defamation suits or the threat of them. There are penalties in the legal system against people who try to silence their legitimate critics, including those clearly speaking any opinion they happen to have of the person criticized.
All you have to do is know your rights.
And know the rights of the people you criticize.
And know the standard of proof. My understanding is that if someone sues you for defamation for a factual accusation you made against them, you only have to prove that your accusation is more likely to be true than not.
If you want to criticize someone who habitually hits people with slap suits, you should consult a lawyer and make sure you criticize them fairly and safely.
People who want to intimidate their critics don't have to be allowed to win. Nobody has the right to silence fair criticism.
Julie
