5 ms·
My understanding was that, in a defamation claim, the complainant must prove the statement is untrue, not that the defendant must prove that her statement is tr
by bravura 15y ago
My understanding was that, in a defamation claim, the complainant must prove the statement is untrue, not that the defendant must prove that her statement is true. Is oregon law different?
- delinka 15y agoIt would be unfortunate if proving a negative were necessary to win such a case. IANAL so it indeed may be that the complainant must prove the statement is untrue. I would expect that a complaint such as this one would necessitate the writer proving that the statement is factual, accurate, or some other variation of truth.
- wtallis 15y agoPutting the burden of proof solely on the journalist leaves the press open to legal harassment, having to constantly prove in court every statement that a public figure doesn't like. That kind of law probably wouldn't pass a constitutional test, especially in front of a Supreme Court that has upheld the right of news organizations to lie on air.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- scott_s 15y agoPublic figures can't win defamation cases based on truth alone. Public figures have to prove malice to win a defamation case. That is, not only was the statement untrue, but the journalist knew it was untrue, and wrote it with the purpose of defaming the public figure. Private people don't have to prove malice.