Truth is the gold standard defense against slander and libel.

So if someone is raped, they are pretty safe calling the attacker a rapist, they just can't call them a convicted rapist until a court has decided that.

It's not always safe. I sympathize with real victims, but some people abuse the principle to influence public opinion in hopes of driving things toward a big monetary settlement in civil court. A personal friend was falsely accused of sexually abusing a minor, really nasty accusations, changed his life forever even though he was/is innocent. An organization that champions the victims of such crimes went all out, and together with the alleged victim's parents slimed him hard, publicly and repeatedly, over a year+ while the thing wound its way through the courts; they were very careful to avoid use of the word "convicted." The press gave the slimeballs all sorts of coverage, as it was a noteworthy case. The criminal case was tossed, with harsh words from the judge for the prosecution, the alleged victim's civil case evaporated, and my friend sued the slimeballs in federal court. The result was the utter obliteration of the organization that slimed him, they are now defunct for all intents and purposes. My friend's suit made claims of injury by libel and slander, and conspiracy to commit the same.

What does your comment have to do with So if someone is raped,, which is what I said?

Looking at it from a 3rd party's point of view, the if is very much in question. So, flipping it around, though this may sound cynical, I would caution anyone about making what are essentially public accusations. They had better be prepared for a legal backlash, and they had better have bulletproof evidence.

I spoke (politely) with the guy who ran the organization that publicly went after my friend — I think he genuinely considered what he was doing to be legally safe, and I also think he was convinced my friend was guilty. His livelihood is now in tatters.

I still don't understand why you felt the need to reply about this to my comment about victims. I wasn't talking about false accusations or third parties, and it isn't a long or complicated comment.

I intended my reply as a pointed cautionary tale — understanding full well you had in mind true victims — for those who may misunderstand what's involved and what's at stake regarding both accused and accuser and so may pursue a regrettable course. Sadly, from a 3rd party's point of view, it's difficult today to distinguish true victims from false accusers.

> and they had better have bulletproof evidence

No you don't need that. The OTHER party needs to have bulletproof evidence, because the accuser is innocent until proven guilty.

If something is true, then you should never ever ever be afraid to say the truth. Go public with your true accusations, and then force the other side to sue you.

Because if you are telling the truth, then you will win, because the other side can't have evidence that you are lying, because the evidence doesn't exist.

It is basically impossible to get in legal trouble for libel, if you know that what you are saying is true.

You are innocent of libel and slander until proven guilt.

Innocent until proven guilt works both ways.

If someone publicly accusing another person of a crime, the accuser is innocent of slander and libel unless you 100% prove that they are being malicious.

It is completely within your right to show evidence to the world and someone should not ever get in trouble with the law if everything that they have presented is true.

The only way you can convict someone of slander is if you prove that they were lying. Good luck doing that, because you almost certainly won't succeed.

See my reply above.