posted on December 14, 2000 08:36:36 PM
I am just curious what all of think regarding posting slanderous personal comments about someone here on the ebay chat board.
Another thread is running where a person has a problem with PayPal and this person chose to copy an e-mail that had received from a third party. The e-mail was an opinion of a PayPal employee.
I am amazed that the corporate attorneys aren't making bucks because of slander.
Am I missing something here - do you think it is okay to post slanderous personal comments without consequence?
Not an attorney. But it's my understanding that in order for something to be slanderous or libelous, it must be false. Truth is an absolute defense.
(And slander is spoken, libel written).
I read the thread, and the poster was quoting another person's comments. Further, the comments seemed to be that person's experience, and likely not provably false.
posted on December 15, 2000 05:34:43 AMmagazineguy is right on target. You can hardly libel Person A by quoting Person B's opinions about him (unless those statements are badly taken out of context, in which case it's Person A suing Person B, and Person B fingering YOU as the culprit for misquoting him).
Moreover, to prove libel you've got to demonstrate malicious intent on the part of the libeler, and damages suffered on the part of the claimant ("hurt feelings" are not enough). The burden of proof is on the one claiming libel, not on the accused - and it's not easy to prove. Furthermore, one needs to to differentiate between making remarks about Person A as an individual, and about him/her as a corporate representative.
Most people, remarkably, don't have a knee-jerk "I'll sue" reaction. They have a thick enough skin to take the remarks for what they're worth, and move on.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 15, 2000 05:35 AM ]
posted on December 15, 2000 11:07:27 AM
Aren't there exceptions to truth as an abolute defense?
I think that malicious publication of embarassing personal secrets of a private individual can be libelous even when true.
posted on December 15, 2000 11:19:07 AM
Slightly off topic but isn't the posting of emails without the sender/recipient identification removed an infraction of AW's TOS?
posted on December 15, 2000 11:50:28 AMNot an attorney. But it's my understanding that in order for something to be slanderous or libelous, it must be false. Truth is an absolute defense.
It varies by state. In my high school journalism class, we had to memorize Oklahoma's libel law -- it includes statements that are false OR malicious.
Whether that would stand up to a serious First Amendment challenge, I don't know. But that's the law in Oklahoma, at least.
