3 ms·
UHC is still legally deficient in that hypothetical. Defamation of a public figure needs actual malice and knowledge (or reckless indifference) of falsehood—bot
by perihelions 2y ago
UHC is still legally deficient in that hypothetical. Defamation of a public figure needs actual malice and knowledge (or reckless indifference) of falsehood—both absent.
There's a large gulf between being wrong and being libelous.
- legitster 2y agoNot necessarily. They sent her a letter asking her to retract her post. If she refuses to do this, then they have grounds for knowledge and malice.
- perihelions 2y agoThat's not actual malice. The doctor has no positive obligation to spend time reading UHC's letters pleading their version of the story, or interact with them in any way at all. Failure to engage with them is not malice.