Libel
saying:
_______ is a drunk.
________is a crooked businessman.
_______lies.
_______is a thief.
with motive shown to the court demonstrating ill intent and that
statements are false. Name calling, while not libel itself serves to
indicate intent.
Not libel
Saying:
______is a dumb ass, jerk.
________ is a fat ass moron.
while these indicate ill intent, no material mistatement of facts are
made, so its not libel.
the name calling by itself is not punishable regardless...but can act
to demonstrate the intent. Intent is one of the legs needed to
support a libel suit.
Not libel
saying:
_____caused the accident (when he did not)
without ill intent, this becomes a simple error or mistaken remark.
Its not libel.
Not libel
saying
_________is a drunk and a thief
(when a person has an arrest record for that and there is not gross
ill iintent to damage the person by the remark. Truth in that case is
an absolute defense)
Libel
saying
__________is a drunk and a thief
(when its a true statement but the court decides that the statement
was made with the intent to harm, AND is too broad a generalization of
the actual situation, say for instance that the person hasnt drank in
decades and stole cookies when a child... calling him a drunk and a
thief in that context would be libel.
Libel
saying
_______is an idiot, moron, dipshit, bone headed arrogant, lying,
drunk.
The first 4 terms are *not libel, just insults. The last two are
misstatements of material fact.
The ill intent is supported by the first 4 terms. ( this is a TTT
specialty, its illegal, it is reprehensible, and 'troy' will have to
answer for that along with his employer if any of it originated from
his office computer)
there is case law on all of this.
these examples are simplified.
Phil Scott
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
