Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:04:15 09/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2002 at 23:37:29, John Smith wrote: >On September 29, 2002 at 23:21:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 28, 2002 at 17:57:07, John Smith wrote: >> >>>Hey Sparky (that fits you so wonderfully), the truth is an absolute defense >>>against both slander and libel. In your previeus post, you admitted to having >>>pirated software on your computer. Pirated software that you did NOT pay for. >>>Therefore, you are a thief. A crook. A member of a most unsavory lot. >>> >>>warmest regards, >>> >>>:) >> >> >>A couple of points. >> >>(1) "truth is _not_ an absolute defense". You can tell the truth, with the >>intent to damage someone's character or good name, and _still_ be found guilty >>in a court of law. >> >>(2) CCC is _not_ the place to carry on this kind of stuff. Please take it >>to private email or somewhere else. It does not belong here and we (the >>moderators) are getting too many complaints. >> >>Both of you take a deep breath and do something _else_ for a while. > > >Robert Hyatt, you are not a lawyer, nor a legal scholar; stick to what you do >best. > >The truth is an absolute defense against any defamation cause of action because >(and pay attention Bobby), by definition, a slanderous or libelous claim is a >false claim ( you still with me Bobby?). Not at all. My quote came directly from a lawyer, that is about 50 feet from my office here. Slander has _nothing_ to do with truth. Slander has everything to do with trying to damage someone's character, truth or not. He quoted a case that came prior to Megan's law, as a reference point. Someone posted the fact that person X had been found guilty of a sex crime, and that person sued for slander. He won. In the ruling, the judge cited intent to harm, vs the need to know of the people being told. And prior to Megan's law, there was no "need to know" so far as the law was concerned... > >Since Terry (hereafter known as 'sparky') admitted to having pirated software in >his computer; software that he did not purchase and futhermore, knew he did not >pay for, he is by legal definition, a thief. I don't disagree. However, if you make such a statement solely to embarass or defame him, you may have a problem. And since there is little other point to making such a statement repeatedly, since no one here is charged with handling piracy issues, the problem could become more serious. I simply suggested that you _stop_ while you were ahead... > >Now then, Bobby, the truth will never land you in jail unless the truth you >state in a court of law or which is admissible under the applicable evidentiary >rules, implicates you (the person stating the truth)in a criminal act. > >With me so far? Nope, for reasons cited by a plantiff's attorney as given above. You can't say anything you want about someone, regardless of whether it is true or not, if your intent is to do them harm. > >In this thread, I stated that Terry could not successfully sue me for libel >because he stated by his own words that he is a thief. My calling him what he >is is just my being accurate. > >Any attempt on his part to sue me would prove fruitless and I would not be found >liable for the tort of defamation(liable) because I only repeated a truth Terry >admitted. > >By the way Bobby, in a tort you are found liable, not guilty; guilty is only for >criminal charges. Correct. But that was me speaking, not a lawyer. The above came from a lawyer... > >warmest regards,
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.