🚀 go-pugleaf

The material quoted below is not good legal advice concerning libel.  
It is pretty close in connection with statements about public officials 
or people who are "public figures."  However, the requirement that a 
libel plaintiff show that the libellous statement was made with malice 
is generally limited to cases involving statements about public 
officials or public figures.  This is because the malice requirement is 
a special rule that adapts the common law of defamation to the 
requirements of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  If the 
plaintiff is _not_ a public figure, the person who made the libellous 
statement may be held liable in some states based only on a showing 
that he or she was negligent (i.e., didn't use "ordinary care.")  Other 
states may stick more closely to the common law approach, which had 
_no_ "intent" requirement but protected libel defendants with various 
"privileges" that might apply in particular cases.  The question of who 
is a "public figure" may also be addressed differently in different 
states.

	If you have concerns in this area, don't rely on what you read 
in Usenet (including this post).  Either consult a lawyer or find some 
reasonably authoritative source on the law of the state you're in.

	By the way, I (a) am a lawyer, (b) don't practice in this area, 
and (c) looked at Prosser on Torts before I wrote this.

		John Boston

In article <5b5lhd$erf@voyager.eng.gulfaero.com>, 
rfrancis@voyager.eng.gulfaero.com says...
>
>In article <5b4nij$2c4@news1.panix.com>,
>Alan Blattberg <alanb@panix.com> wrote:
>>reicja00@dons.ac.usfca.edu (Jake Reichert) spake thusly:
>>
>>>You can only sue for liable if the perpetrator
>>>knowingly spreads false information about someone.  If they didn't
>>>know they were intentionally giving out false information, they 
aren't
>>>at fault.  Liable is pretty difficult to prove.
>
>Actually, as I remember from Journalism classes and again from 
government
>classes, libel has four aspects which must be present.
>
>Identification, defemation, publication and malice.
>
>The first three are pretty easy.
>Identification - identifying a specific person or group either by 
name,
>picture or otherwise.
>defamation - What you write (libel is written, slander is spoken) must 
have
>been defamitory, derogatory or in otherways attacking someone's 
character or
>perceived to attack someone's character.
>publication - The information must be publicized.  Whether that is 
printed
>in a newspaper or in a leaflet dropped from a helicopter over Times 
Square
>at midnight.
>
>The last one, malice, is the tough one to prove.
>It can be defined loosly as reckless disregard for the truth or 
failing to
>check enough sources.
>If a defamitory fact about someone is published and the author checked 
the
>fact in a number of different, independent, reputable sources and did 
the
>best darn job of finding out information as possible, then there's no
>malice.  This one is a judgement call, so its the tough one to prove.
>
>
>Ruth Ann
>
>____
>Standard disclaimers.  These are my opinions and in no way reflect the
>opinions of Georgia Tech, Gulfstream Aerospace or anyone else.
>
>
>-- 
>Ruth Ann Francis - A misplaced Michigander at GA Tech   
>Georgia Tech Aerospace Engineering Major             
gt0163c@acme.gatech.edu
>Co-op Gulfstream Aerospace                 
rfrancis@voyager.eng.gulfaero.com
>"Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning" -Peter Pan