ANST - Court of Public Opinion

[Dennis and Dory Grace]

Salut Cozyns,

Lyonel aisai.

In response to der Ritter Dieterich's statement--

>>  In
>> the law's opinion, accusatory statements made out of court that are
>> potentially damaging to a persons character- even when they seem
>> *obviously* true- constitute grounds for a valid lawsuit (read: lawsuit
>> that can win in court and cost you your money, your reputation, and
>> possibly even some of your time).

M. Dore claims:

>I see this legal cludge get thrown around a lot, but it is a bit
misguided. First, 
>liable only extends to certain types of statements. Second, the libelled
must 
>show damage because of the statements (I doubt that is possible in this
case). 
>Third, the accused must not have been able to reasonably believe the 
>statements. It must also be shown that any co-defendents wilfully
participated 
>and I doubt anyone could show the SCA inc. wilfully participated. It all
gets 
>much more complicated than this, of course, but if you want more you will
have 
>to get a lawyer to fill you in.

I cannot agree with M. Dore's enlargement.  First, "libel" certainly
applies to criminal accusations published in a public forum.  Second, the
plaintiff need only show a reasonable potential for damage coupled with
malice aforethought, both of which are fairly easy to demonstrate in this
case.  "Damage" need only extend so far as to limit the plaintiff's pursuit
of happiness, which making him anathema at SCA events would certainly do.
M. Dore's third statement is the popular misunderstanding of libel
cases--"just prove it's true, and you're clear!"  Uh-uh, doesn't work that
way.  True statements are still libelous if they're malicious and
potentially damaging.  A few years ago, a reputable major news chain tried
to publish a tell-all article about the journalistic practices of the
National Enquirer.  The NE sued before the article made it to press.  The
newspaper in question swore they'd written only the truth, but they were
forced to settle out of court to avoid the hundred-million dollar suit,
which they knew they couldn't win.  The reporter had gone after the NE with
malicious intent--a desire to discredit.

As for the SCA's complicity or even Ansteorra's complicity, these are
inconsequential.  What ruins non-profit groups isn't losing cases, it's
having to fight the cases.  The court costs would be prohibitive and could
be crippling.

Der Ritter Dieterich was, I think, right-headed in his admonition to keep
such warnings private.

lo vostre por vos servir
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace

============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.