:: Nathan Stratton writes ::
> I believe you are talking about Libel, and if I recall, that requires the
> following tests be met:
>
> 1. Malice of intent
> 2. Knowledgeable untruth
>
> If either is missing, I believe libel cannot be prosecuted.Yep, that was what NetRail was missing with me. It is very hard to shut
someone up who is telling the truth. Exodus should get together with
NetRail, at least their legal people sound like a match.
No. IANAL, but I did a fair amount of research on this when the
director of computing services at the University I attended claimed I
had actionably libeled one of his admins. (He was wrong.) (Don't ask.)
The person who is allegedly the victim of libel never has to prove that
the allegedly libelous statement is false to prevail. (Otherwise, it
would be easy to avoid libel. I could, for example, accuse anyone I
wanted of, say, being a child molestor. How would they prove that they
never molested any child?)
In many cases, truth is an absolute defense. That is, in many cases,
if I say something about you, and you sue me for libel, and I prove
it's true, then you lose.
That's a fundamental difference, because it means that in cases where
there is no proof as to truth or falsity, it can still be actionable
libel.
Malice of intent is also not generally required.
For a public figure (that is, a case when the alleged victim is a
public figure within the forum where the libel allegedly occurred), the
plaintiff must prove that the statement was defamatory (this is
independant of truth or falsity), and that it was made with a reckless
disregard for the truth.
For a non-public figure, the standards for much more complicated, and,
in some such cases, a completely true statement can be actionally
libelous.
Public figure is a local matter, though. If I make statements about,
say, Nathan Stratton (since I'm following up to his message) on the
evening news on TV, the standard is probably going to be the
non-public-figure standard. But if I make those statements on this
list, where Nathan is relatively well known, it's going to be the
public figure standard.
Anyway, I'll shut-up since you can't configure your routers with this.
My point is this: Libel/Slander law is complicated and non-obvious.
Don't go libel someone based on advice from NANOG.
- Brett (brettf@netcom.com)