truth is a defense against libel -- but what exactly has to be true?

[amethyst]

I'm digging up some information for an indigent friend of mine (Bob) whom I believe was defamed. The problem is, I'm not sure a defamation case will work because of the issue of 'truth'.

To keep it simple, Bob never touched a certain minor. However, an authority, whom I'll represent as a person Alice for simplicity, did a sloppy investigation of something and published a report that the minor in question said that Bob touched her on the thigh.

The report went viral, so to speak.

The authority Alice is now admitting that the claims of touching on the thighs were 'unsubstantiated'. So, my friend might say, why is a defamatory report about me going public, such a report being unsubstantiated?

But here is the problem. In the defense of 'truth', what has to be true for the defense to work?

The report said 'The minor reported that Bob touched her on the thighs'. That may be true; the child may have been asked leading questions, and may have been provoked in all sorts of ways to apparently assent to that statement. Bob was not present for the interview of the child. Some other things said by the child seem to contradict the claim that Bob touched her on the thighs and make the original report questionable even on its own terms, without even the authority's admission that the claims were 'unsubstantiated'. The report looks extremely sloppily and carelessly done, and does seem to show a reckless disregard for Bob's reputation.

But here is the kicker: what does Bob have to prove? (i) Does he just have to prove that he did not touch the child on the thighs? That may be possible. But does he have to prove that (ii) the child did not say that Bob touched her on the thighs? That seems much harder, and almost impossible.

Hopefully the law is not so stupid that Bob has to prove (ii). What is the law on this? What is the principle by which Bob only has to (hopefully) prove (i) false rather than (ii) which may be strictly true.

Thanks in advance.

Note: the question seems to have something in common with reporting that you heard something. I could say 'I heard Bob is a molester' and that could be true, while it is false that Bob is a molester. Surely the fact that it is TRUE that I heard that Bob is a molester does not defend me against libel in such a case?

 

[mightymoose]

This will go nowhere. It is not defamation or anything else. Let it go.
The investigator looked into a report of abuse and it was determined to be unfounded. This actually is in favor of your friend. There is nothing to defend and nothing to prove. The matter is already over.

 

[Proserpina]

I'm digging up some information for an indigent friend of mine (Bob) whom I believe was defamed. The problem is, I'm not sure a defamation case will work because of the issue of 'truth'.

To keep it simple, Bob never touched a certain minor. However, an authority, whom I'll represent as a person Alice for simplicity, did a sloppy investigation of something and published a report that the minor in question said that Bob touched her on the thigh.

The report went viral, so to speak.

The authority Alice is now admitting that the claims of touching on the thighs were 'unsubstantiated'. So, my friend might say, why is a defamatory report about me going public, such a report being unsubstantiated?

But here is the problem. In the defense of 'truth', what has to be true for the defense to work?

The report said 'The minor reported that Bob touched her on the thighs'. That may be true; the child may have been asked leading questions, and may have been provoked in all sorts of ways to apparently assent to that statement. Bob was not present for the interview of the child. Some other things said by the child seem to contradict the claim that Bob touched her on the thighs and make the original report questionable even on its own terms, without even the authority's admission that the claims were 'unsubstantiated'. The report looks extremely sloppily and carelessly done, and does seem to show a reckless disregard for Bob's reputation.

But here is the kicker: what does Bob have to prove? (i) Does he just have to prove that he did not touch the child on the thighs? That may be possible. But does he have to prove that (ii) the child did not say that Bob touched her on the thighs? That seems much harder, and almost impossible.

Hopefully the law is not so stupid that Bob has to prove (ii). What is the law on this? What is the principle by which Bob only has to (hopefully) prove (i) false rather than (ii) which may be strictly true.

Thanks in advance.

Note: the question seems to have something in common with reporting that you heard something. I could say 'I heard Bob is a molester' and that could be true, while it is false that Bob is a molester. Surely the fact that it is TRUE that I heard that Bob is a molester does not defend me against libel in such a case?

Look at the newspaper reports.

Any newspaper reports, but specially those dealing with trash mags.

The answer will become crystal clear.

 

[amethyst]

Look at the newspaper reports.

Any newspaper reports, but specially those dealing with trash mags.

The answer will become crystal clear.

I have already looked at the newspaper, and the answer is NOT crystal clear. That's why I'm asking the question.

I'm wondering if the question has been understood? Let me clarify.

Let's just say the newspaper says 'the report said that the child said that Bob touched the child on the thighs'. This is true. However, Bob did not touch the child on the thighs.

Does the defense of 'truth' against libel work in this case?

A parallel question (to which the legal analogy should be clear) is: If I say that 'I heard that Bob is a rapist' -- and it is true that I heard that Bob is a rapist, but it is false that Bob is a rapist -- how does the defense of of 'truth' against libel work in that case?

 

[amethyst]

>> This will go nowhere. It is not defamation or anything else. Let it go.
The investigator looked into a report of abuse and it was determined to be unfounded. This actually is in favor of your friend. There is nothing to defend and nothing to prove. The matter is already over.

mightymoose, you may have missed some elements. The admission by the authority who wrote the report, that the allegation in the report was unfounded, was after the fact of the broad publication of the report and this admission has received zero publicity. The report itself containing the defamatory statement received tremendous publicity.

 

[Proserpina]

When a reporter says something along the lines of "Fred's wife made allegations that Fred had done X, Y & Z", it is clear that the reporter is not actually saying "Fred did this".

The reporter is merely ... reporting ... something. The reporter is not accusing Fred of any wrongdoing.

There are no laws preventing reporters from ... reporting. That's why they generally select their words very carefully.

As for Alice, she is also safe. Because, again, she's not accusing Fred of anything. She's merely saying that someone accused Fred of doing something....which is the truth.

Above all though, one must remember that this isn't a court. There need not be proof that Fred did anything wrong, in order for someone to say, quite truthfully, that they "heard that Fred did something".

 

[Proserpina]

>> This will go nowhere. It is not defamation or anything else. Let it go.
The investigator looked into a report of abuse and it was determined to be unfounded. This actually is in favor of your friend. There is nothing to defend and nothing to prove. The matter is already over.

mightymoose, you may have missed some elements. The admission by the authority who wrote the report, that the allegation in the report was unfounded, was after the fact of the broad publication of the report and this admission has received zero publicity. The report itself containing the defamatory statement received tremendous publicity.

Moose isn't missing anything.

The allegation was unfounded - that does not mean that the allegation wasn't made at all. The report did not contain a defamatory statement. It simply contained a report.

 

[amethyst]

Thanks.

I find this surprising.

Does this leave the door open for me to destroy Bob's reputation with impunity by publishing extensively the statement 'I heard that Bob is a rapist', on the basis that I did hear that Bob was a rapist? (Even though he is not a rapist and I heard it from someone who is unreliable.) This does not seem to make much sense.

If I want to defame someone, can I just find someone on the Internet who says something defamatory about them in some chat room somewhere, and then say 'I heard that....' and repeat what I 'heard' on the Internet?

Can I make a defense akin to the one you made above, that 'What I said did not contain a defamatory statment. It simply contained a report' [i.e. of what I heard]

 

[Proserpina]

To answer definitively, yes, you could feasibly go up to anyone and say "Hey, I read online somewhere that Bob did this...". But would you be able to cite where you first read about it if someone asked? Do you have a preexisting grudge against Bob (or any of Bob's family)?

Bobs friends and love ones should know that such rumors are just that - rumors. Unfortunately very early on in human development, Terry The Caveman discovered that if he told a lie to Bob The Caveman's Wife, Bob's Wife might just believe him and go to live in Terry's cave instead. We haven't really progressed much in that area and worse, we're still very suspicious as a species - well, Terry wouldn't say that about Bob unless there was at least a little bit of truth there, right?

It's never smart to spread rumors - in my experience, it always bites the rumor-monger right where it hurts. And in some instances it might not protect the speaker from other consequences. An example might be that Terry calls Bob's Lumberjack Boss and tell him he heard something horrid about Bob...while it might not be defamation, it may leave Bob with perhaps some other form of civil recourse.

 

[mightymoose]

Another element to this is that your friend must have suffered some actual damage as a result of all of this. Not liking what was said is not sufficient... proving damages can be quite difficult.

 

[Proserpina]

If it's defamation per se (which would generally be the case here), actual damages are not required before a suit can go ahead.

 

[army judge]

Proving a negative has long been known to be all but impossible. Hence, the main reason in our criminal justice system the burden of proof is on the state. It is also on the plaintiff in civil matters.

What is proof? Generally proof derives of evidence. Evidence is what a judge allows to be said, shown, or described before the court or a jury.

It might work against Bob to litigate this matter. I'll assume Alice's investigation was as you stated. The next Alice might be more thorough. Should Bob decide to pursue this, a previously unopened can of worms could appear, along with a smoking gun.

Be very careful, because if it's uttered in court, under oath, it's protected speech. Unless Bob can afford a very good lawyer, not just a loyal pal doing the best he can to support a friend, Bob would be best advised not to rekindle the smoldering embers!

 

[amethyst]

Thanks for your responses everyone who responded. I do agree that it may not be in Bob's best interests to sue. I will be bringing all of that up. My project right now is to find out about the law.

What pretty much everyone said seems to contradict the following legal opinion coming from what I think is a reputable site and is covering US law:

>> Keep in mind that the republication of someone else's defamatory statement can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).

( I am not allowed to post the link yet on this forum, but you can find it easily by doing a google search on the quote. It's from Digital Media Law Project.)

This seems to support my contention that the defense of 'truth' is not absolute depending on what exactly is examined for 'truth'. In the light of this, it seems that Alice is indeed exposed to a defamation lawsuit against Bob, even though she may have accurately quoted or reported something.

Thoughts?

 

[Proserpina]

My thoughts are that you should be doing your own homework.

But that aside, you're missing the difference between a statement of fact and an allegation (or report of same).

Example:

Alice reported that there had been an allegation against Bob concerning Flapjacks.

Alice stated that Bob had done bad things to Flapjacks.

There is a massive and very important difference.

 

[army judge]

No matter what it is said, its HOW you say it (as Pro capably illustrates) and where you say it.

Bubba said it was his opinion that RayRay is intimate with monkeys.

Babbles said that RayRay was seen doing naughty things to cows.

Bottom line, oral statements TRUE or FALSE are very hard to PROVE without corroborating evidence.

 

[amethyst]

>> My thoughts are that you should be doing your own homework.

Prosperina, I'm doing my homework all right. That's not very polite and not called-for. My very homework, as I'm pointing out, seems to contradict what you say. You haven't addressed this contradiction, you just restated your position, and falsely alleged that I am not doing my homework.

It's very clear that there is a difference between saying, 'Alice reported that there had been an allegation against Bob concerning Flapjacks' and 'Alice stated that Bob had done bad things to Flapjacks'. This is not the issue here.

The issue here is that you seem to claim that 'reporting' what someone said, provided you report only that they said it, creates immunity to libel. This contradicts what this presumably-reputable site is claiming regarding libel. I'll quote a smaller bit for emphasis:

>> you won't be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to it's source. For example, if you quote a witness to a traffic accident who says the driver was drunk when he ran the red light and it turns out the driver wasn't drunk and he had a green light, you can't hide behind the fact that you were merely republishing the witness' statement (which would likely be defamatory).

Doesn't it seem to say that a statement by Alice that 'Gerry said that Bob was drunk when he ran the light' does not grant immunity to Alice, even if it is true that Gerry said this? The site seems to be saying that Alice can't hide behind the fact that she is merely republishing the witness' statement. Is the above piece from the other site just wrong?

This contradicts your position, and in a very clear way. You haven't addressed this.

 

[army judge]

Amethyst the crux of proving up any slander or oral defamation action is that one must prove what someone is alleged to have said.

Joe said to Moe, "I saw you molesting a six month old baby. I know you robbed Bill of $60. You have gonorrhea and syphillis."

Only Joe and Moe are present.

If those statements are lies, and both parties know they're lies, how can Moe prove what Joe said?

No need to answer.

Many scholarly articles have been published in scores of law review journals all across this land.

Few cases of slander have been proven.

In my view, certainly not scientific mind you, slander is more difficult to prove than it's sister tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress.

That said, Amethyst, in my hypo did Moe suffer any damages (assuming he attempts to prove up slander)?

 

[amethyst]

Hi army judge, in this particular case there is no slander at all no matter what is said -- there is no third party on front of whom Moe is defamed. If there is a third party, there could be slander.

BTW, in the case of my friend, ALL THE POTENTIALLY DEFAMATORY MATERIAL IS WRITTEN and therefore can be proven to have been 'uttered'.

Getting back to what I'm saying above, the SPLC, surely a reputable organization in terms of opinion on law matters, seems to be supporting the case I'm making as well:

SPLC: " Reprinting or re-broadcasting a libelous statement made by someone else (such as a quote or a letter to the editor) can also subject a publication to a libel lawsuit."

Note, 'such as a quote'.

 

[Proserpina]

Given that you're not understanding the issue at all, I shall gracefully bow out of the discussion

 

[army judge]

Hi army judge, in this particular case there is no slander at all no matter what is said -- there is no third party on front of whom Moe is defamed. If there is a third party, there could be slander.

BTW, in the case of my friend, ALL THE POTENTIALLY DEFAMATORY MATERIAL IS WRITTEN and therefore can be proven to have been 'uttered'.

Getting back to what I'm saying above, the SPLC, surely a reputable organization in terms of opinion on law matters, seems to be supporting the case I'm making as well:

SPLC: " Reprinting or re-broadcasting a libelous statement made by someone else (such as a quote or a letter to the editor) can also subject a publication to a libel lawsuit."

Note, 'such as a quote'.

Libel, slander's first cousin, the one with brains and looks. LOL

Same principle, except how does Bob prove the authenticity and the author of the alleged libelous material.

Sure, it was written using Susie's account, perhaps.
Maybe the account was created WITHOUT Susie's knowledge.
Maybe the account was hacked?
Maybe Susan hasn't used the account in two years?
Maybe this, maybe that, maybe, maybe, maybe?
But, how does that PROVE Susie authored it? In fact, how can Bob prove Susie knew of the materials existence?

No need to answer here, A, that's what must be proven in court.
That's why these torts are hard to prove.
Defamation, the modern cousin of slander and libel, same same.
Mere possession of written material doesn't prove who authored it, even if it was written using someone's FaceBook account. We all know FB accounts are regularly hacked.

Even if you prove EVERYTHING, damages are often minimal. Why? How can you prove anyone other than Bob saw the alleged defamatory statement? How can you prove the statement wasn't altered?

How can Bob prove anyone swathe statement, other than himself?
Even if others saw it, did they believe it?
Did it damage his standing or reputation in the community?


That's why these cases often result in a token award of $1.00 or $10.00.


Last, but not least, judgments often go uncollected.
After all of that, still no satisfaction or resolution.