> There is a good chance a judge would find that the reporters are guilty of libel. Then the professor would be in a pretty good position to defend libel counte

> There is a good chance a judge would find that the reporters are guilty of libel. Then the professor would be in a pretty good position to defend libel counter-charges. That's true, but in many cases like this, on weighing the evidence and seeing evidence for mutual libels, the judge will throw out both actions. The professor should have consulted an attorney before calling people liars -- all the subjects need to do is show that they didn't publish statements that they knew were false (thus failing the definition of "lie"). Failing a reasonable test of due diligence may be deplorable, but it doesn't make one a liar. > I thought you'd get more meat from his reference to their crimes. Libel is civil. All true. One of the ironies of modern times is that a civil action can do more to undermine one's life than a criminal one, depending on the circumstances.