3 ms·
I don't know from where you are getting that libel in most US states requires malice. IANAL, but I am pretty sure it's just saying something provable to be fac
by lr4444lr 5y ago
I don't know from where you are getting that libel in most US states requires malice.
IANAL, but I am pretty sure it's just saying something provable to be factually wrong that can be demonstrably linked as the precipitating cause to damages against the plaintiff.
- pvg 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
- mongol 5y agoFun fact. In Sweden, telling something truthful can be libel. A Swedish politician was sentenced for libel for pointing out, in a Facebook post, that a legal representative in a civil lawsuit she was involved with had earlier had been sentenced for a crime of sexual nature involving children. (I can't recall the details). This was a true fact, but since she said it with the intent to defame (according to the court) she was sentenced for defamation.
- cafard 5y agoUnder English common law, truth is no defense against libel. "Mansfield said it, it's true as the Bible,/The greater the truth, the greater the libel." But since late colonial times, American precedents allow truth as a defense.
- oh_sigh 5y agoI'm sure there is not an exact equivalent between Swedish "defame" and English "defame", but wouldn't airing any negative news about a person be defamation? If Löfven was found sexually abusing a child in flagrante delicto, wouldn't it ruin his otherwise fairly good reputation to let the public know this fact?
- mongol 5y agoIt certainly would.