Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 2296493" data-attributes="member: 14159">Obligatory IANAL, but some quick checks of references will be helpful:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#United_States_law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#United_States_law</a><a href="http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C" target="_blank">http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||</a><a href="http://ipcenter.bna.com/pic2/ip.nsf/id/BNAP-5JBMPL?OpenDocument" target="_blank">http://ipcenter.bna.com/pic2/ip.nsf/id/BNAP-5JBMPL?OpenDocument</a>According to these sources:In the US, you generally have to prove one of three things to win a libel case:1. People believed what was said about you and you lost money/business over this (this doesn't apply for public figures and officials).2. The person you are accusing of libel must have acted with malice (i.e. they had to have lied or spread the information for malicious purposes.  Try to sue a conspiracy theorist for this one and they'll swear up and down it's true and they're just spreading the truth, it'll turn the courtroom into a circus).3. The person accused of libel didn't know if the information was true or false, but acted with "reckless negligence" about their accuracy of their information.This all means that it's hard for a public figure to sue for libel, even when being accused of atrocities, as long as the accuser sincerely believes what they are saying.  Also, if a statement is clearly labeled as an opinion instead of fact, it's protected even if it's blatantly and provably untrue.US laws on Libel are quite hard on the plaintiff compared to many other countries because of the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.  Traditionally, the First Amendment is a very broad protection and the government must justify why it can't be said, instead of you justifying why it can be said.  A famous example of going too far is "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater", a statement meant just to cause a panic and that could get people hurt.  If its believed to be truthful (even if it isn't) it's pretty sacrosanct.(PS: I tried to keep this factual and purely oriented to basic civics without going into politics, in case it is pushing the line, like the original poster I'll just leave this to stand on its own).</blockquote>

Verification