Re:Google Doesn't Want What's Best for Us
by leereeves on Monday August 14, 2017 @02:33PM
(#15011211)
Apparently it's more complicated than either of us think.
> The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.
But if these jury instructions are correct and up to date, California remains one of the states where truth is an affirmative defense.
> [Name of defendant] is not responsible for [name of plaintiff]’s harm, if any, if [he/she] proves that [his/her] statement(s) about [name of plaintiff] [was/were] true. [Name of defendant] does not have to prove that the statement(s) [was/were] true in every detail, so long as the statement(s) [was/were] substantially true.
Of course, this is for private plaintiffs on matters of private concern. If Peter Thiel was ruled a public figure, libel would be essentially impossible to prove.
> The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.
http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defens...
But if these jury instructions are correct and up to date, California remains one of the states where truth is an affirmative defense.
> [Name of defendant] is not responsible for [name of plaintiff]’s harm, if any, if [he/she] proves that [his/her] statement(s) about [name of plaintiff] [was/were] true. [Name of defendant] does not have to prove that the statement(s) [was/were] true in every detail, so long as the statement(s) [was/were] substantially true.
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1720...
Of course, this is for private plaintiffs on matters of private concern. If Peter Thiel was ruled a public figure, libel would be essentially impossible to prove.