Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: old curmudgeon
I have read of cases where the court ruled that even if the damaging statement is true, if made with malice the maligned person is entitled to damages.

Wrong. Truth is an absolute defense.

"Malice" is only legally applicable when a lie is published knowingly.

172 posted on 11/28/2011 3:20:42 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]


To: M. Thatcher

I don’t have the link, but I read of a case where a guy had done something dishonest, I forgot what, and someone used that info to cost him his job.

He sued and won.

I was amazed because I always also had the understanding that the truth would protect you in a libel/slander case and I have been to the edge myself in an incident where I turned a customer in for graft, and it was big time big money costing his job, which I think paid him in the neighborhood of $200,000.

So when I read of that case, it stuck with me. Especially the part where the court ruled that even if true, it was done with malice and intent to ruin him.

I assume you are an attorney. You might expound a little more on the topic if you are. Perhaps you recall the case I speak of. Perhaps it was appealed and missed that.


188 posted on 11/28/2011 3:28:00 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson