Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Not so certainly defamatory.
Counter to their claim of being wholesome and mainstream. Ugly facts to get out to the public. But defamatory only if proved to be false."
|
Hello Mike!
Well said, but let me add something to this, although I am not a lawyer.
My understanding is, for something to be considered defamatory, it must not ONLY be proven to be false, it must ALSO be proven (by the Prosecution) that the Defandant was negligent in publishing something as "fact". In other words, an honest misunderstanding will not make a libel or slander charge stick.
Think about this in terms of Journalism. Have you read a retraction in a newspaper before? Sometimes, journalists don't get their facts straight. Could they be sued for Defamation? Yes,
*IF* it can be proven that they used only a single source to get the information they published, or if it can be proven that they had an agenda in printing what they did. For this reason, Journalists are instructed to use more than one source when printing an article. Newspapers stand to lose a lot if they print something false that results in financial damages. Was SCP negligent in what they printed? So far, it wouldn't seem so. They spent four years conducting research, and they interviewed current members, ex-members, and people who have had contact with the LC. They even tried to interview Witness Lee himself, and invited him to bring along two witnesses of his own. This they were refused (and they apparently have evidence of that), but they did make the effort.
On this basis, whatever claims are made in this book, I am not certain that we can say they were "negligently" made.