Is This Libel?

[LoremIpsum]

Hello, very interesting forum. So much to learn!

I am in the UK and I don't know in which country the forum in question is hosted, and I am not sure which country's laws apply. But let's take this as a general question if we may.

I am a member of a private, members only internet forum populated by people who work in the radio and broadcast business. I recently wrote the following, after some rowdy behaviour by some of the members:

"It's little wonder that some comments made on (name of the forum) in the past have gone as far as becoming the subject of law suits!"

Now, the fourm owner is not happy about this comment and posted this in the same thread:

"..if you even insinuate, as you appear to be doing, that I've been served a law suit in the past, I'll cheerfully take you to court to prove your allegations. "!

For the record, my information was just hearsay and idle gossip, and I have posted to that effect, and I have also posted withdrawing my original statement.

He has not served papers on me, but would he have a case against me? I think he is just making a threat of some kind. What would I be accused of? I did not mention the fourm owner in my statement. I did not mention anyone in particular, only that some comments made in the forum in that past have gone as far as court. For all we know, the legal action that I refer to could have had nothing to do with the forum owner. Does he have to prove that I meant him? And is my comment libel?

Thanks in advance.

 

[NYClex]

I don't know about British law in this aspect, but let us say this: according to the theory of torts you might have come close to either:

-False light

"The privacy tort of false light overlaps in large measure with defamation.


The elements of false light which must be established by all plaintiffs include the defendant's (1) publicizing (2) false facts (3) that a reasonable person would object to. [Restatement § 652E.]

False facts that a reasonable person would object to encompass a broad category that includes, but is not limited to, defamatory statements actionable under defamation. [See, e.g., Time v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967).]"

Or outright defamation of character (libel).

"Common Law Defamation

At common law, defamation was a strict liability tort. As such, a plaintiff could recover without proving any fault on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement was presumed. Finally, in most instances, damages were presumed. Thus, in most common law defamation actions the plaintiff only had to prove (1) a defamatory statement (2) about the plaintiff (3) that was "published." The defendant then had the opportunity to try to assert a defense, such as the truth of the statement. Thus, at common law, a defendant could quite unwittingly defame another and be responsible for significant damages.


To be defamatory under the general common law rule, a statement must hold the plaintiff up to scorn, ridicule, or contempt. The Restatement provides that a communication is defamatory if it "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." [Restatement § 559]. A defamatory statement, is one that harms reputation by injuring a person's general character or causing personal disgrace. A court determines as a matter of law whether any interpretation of the communication could be construed as defamatory, while it is for a jury to decide whether the statement in the case before it is actually defamatory.

[
Some statements are facially defamatory; nothing needs to be added for a reader to fully understand the defamatory nature of the statement. Other times the defamatory impact can only be understood by the addition of extrinsic information. In such situations the plaintiff is obligated to plead the extra facts needed to make the statement defamatory ("inducement") or to explain the defamatory impact ("innuendo") if it is not obvious.



A plaintiff must establish that the defamatory communication was published, meaning that it reached one person other than the defamation plaintiff. The plaintiff must show that either the defendant intended to publish the information or was negligent in so doing. Any repetition of a defamation is considered publication, even if the republisher attributes the statement to the initial source.

In most defamation cases, a plaintiff's reputational injury may be presumed, permitting the plaintiff to recover compensation without any proof beyond the defamatory nature of the communication. In the defamation context, such damages are called "general damages." General damages provide compensation for the emotional trauma and harm suffered by the plaintiff whose reputation was besmirched. There are situations, however, where the plaintiff must plead and prove a specific type of loss, called "special damages," in order to prevail. Special damages are specific economic losses flowing from the defamation. If the plaintiff proves these special damages, she may then recover general damages. The damages recoverable to a defamation plaintiff depend on whether the defamatory communication is considered libel or slander and, if slander, whether the defamation falls into a category denominated "slander per se."

Of course it depends on the details of the whole case if there is a valid case. But generally, proclaiming that someone was subject to a lawsuit and thereby hinting that this person might have done something wrong can, in the right circumstances, be objectionable, offensive and defamatory.

 

[LoremIpsum]

But which 'someone' do we mean? It is not obvious that my statement is about the fourm owner.

It's as if I had said, "as a result of things that have been said in this bar, legal action has resulted" Between whom? It isn't obvious that the legal action had involved the bar owner. In the same way, why is it obvious that the legal action I hint at involved the fourm owner?

 

[NYClex]

I didn't say it was. I just described the theory. One would have to know the exact circumstances to make an evaluation. You are right, he only has a valid case if he would reasonably be offended or his reputation would be damaged. If the circumstances do not show that this is clear, there would be no case.

Obviously this person felt he was meant. If circumstances are so obvious that the rest of the forum users would feel so, too, there might be a case. It really depends on the full details.