Stupid Legal Threats: You Can't Write About Me Because of Your Blog's Name

Re:Stupid Legal Threats: You Can't Write About Me Because of... by lutusp on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @07:24PM (#5598641)

A quote: "Among the doctrines that defeat Dr. Fernandez' theory are these: truth is an absolute defense to defamation."

Would that it were so. In the U.S., where these events took place, there is a legal principle called "false light", in which truthful remarks can still lead to a judgment against a defendant on the ground that the truths were selected in such a way as to cast the plaintiff in a false light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stupid Legal Threats: You Can't Write About Me Because of... by chacham15 on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @02:15AM (#5600147)

You are missing a BIG part of that tort: "made with actual malice." You cant be sued for accidental false light, you have to purposely cast a false light on facts with malicious intent.

"Truth is always an absolute defense against a defamation suit in the United States."

-Your favorite source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stupid Legal Threats: You Can't Write About Me Because of... by lutusp on Wednesday April 24, 2013 @05:07AM (#5600525)

> You cant be sued for accidental false light, you have to purposely cast a false light on facts with malicious intent.

It's more accurate to say that the plaintiff has to substantiate malicious intent in court. Whether there is actual malice is more a matter of philosophy than law. Since the standard in civil court is preponderance, making that showing isn't as difficult as it might be in a criminal court.

Then there's the issue of whether the plaintiff is, or can be portrayed as, a public figure -- that changes everything.

[ Parent | on HN ]