🚀 go-pugleaf

sb380@city.ac.uk (HOLT A D) wrote:
>s902113@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Luke Mewburn) writes:
>
>>Anyway, back to the point. If, for some reason, I was alleged to have
>>defamed someone - I'd expect the legal entities involved to prove
>>beyond a doubt that a) I typed it, and b) what I typed was what the
>>defamee received. And I doubt their abilities in resolving those
>>issues quickly.
>
>I wouldn't be so confident. Defamation is an issue for the Civil Law (not 
>criminal), thus cases are assessed on "balance of probabilities" not
>"beyond reasonable doubt". Also the presumption would be that the message
>was passed unaltered unless you could show (at least suggestive) evidence
>that it was not what you wrote. It might come down to whether or not a
>judge (or perhaps jury) believed your word.

In addition, we'd have to consider the context of the alleged "defamatory
message."  If the "defamatory" message was the only one from that person,
the forgery defense might work; if, however, the defamed party can produce
several messages from that source, which became more and more vitriolic,
the forgery defense becomes weaker.  I don't often see "out of the blue"
flames/defamation; there's almost always some lead-in arguing/vitriol.

--Wes


-- 
        Wes Morgan - University of Kentucky - Lexington, Kentucky USA
       morgan@engr.uky.edu  ||  morgan@ukcc  ||  ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan
Mailing list for AT&T StarServer E/S admins -- starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
           GCS/E/MU  d---  -p+  c++  l+  m*  s++/++  !g  w+  t+  r