Quote:
Originally Posted by Legalguide
Please bear in mind that post#6 would be considered libelous by US law. They would be considered assertion of fact, not opinion. The person in question would not be considered a public figure. And the burden of proof on the factual veracity of those statements in post #6 would be on the person who said them. The person, or in this case persons libeled are not responsible to prove the statement is false, only that they are harmed by it. The person making the statement would have to prove the statement is true in order to reduce or eliminate any court judgement. Also, the objection made by the parties that have been named is sufficient in the eyes of the legal system to constitute a request for a retraction. Publishing a retraction will also reduce a court judgement, but failing to do so would also be considered in determining damages.
Also, the general rule is that anyone who repeats a defamatory statement is just as liable as the person who originally made it.
Best,
LG
|
Dale Jackson is an church elder, and therefore a public figure. His wife's name, however, should be deleted.
It is highly doubtful that opinions of former members posted on obscure religious boards would rise to the level of being considered "assertion of fact." Do not our 1st amendment rights provide us protections to speak of past painful experiences of church involvement, especially since any such discussions are regularly shut down within the movement.
If discussions like these by anonymous former members can be litigated, how about the defamation activities regularly performed by LSM during their very public quarantines?
What
LegalGuide should have advised us on is how a class action suit could be initiated by all the former members represented here.
LegalGuide are you connected with LSM's Defense and Confirmation Project?