ANST - Court of Public Opinion

[Stonewall Van Wie III]

> 
> 
> 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.

Damages is not a required element of an intentional tort (libel), no damages 
need be proven.  Of course, the recovery will be minimal.

> 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. 

The truth is an absolute defense to libel.  What you have described is a 
entirely different intentional tort, generally called "intentional injury to 
business reputation."

Malice is also not an element of ordinary libel.  The intention that is 
required refers to the issuance of the statement.  The issuance of a untrue 
statement concerning someone is libel even though the issuer believed what he 
said to be true.  Malice only becomes a requirement when the person or 
organization which is the subject of the untrue statement is a "public figure". 
such as a politician, movie star, or the National Enquirer.

Willem
---
Stonewall Van Wie III         svanwie at davlin.net
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.