Aha! I knew it. Actually as soon as I read your post I knew the pro from
Dover had arrived.
Disregard everything I said.
Truth is a defense but it's never assumed. I think we'd be better off with
a legal system based on fist fights. As far as the FOT is concerned, If I
ever get sued over something I said here I'll just send Bruno and Stasi to
chat with the injured party (which would deepen the definition of injured
party).
-----Original Message-----
From: Barr, Scott [mailto:sbarr@mccarty-law.com]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 2:49 PM
To: Bill Babcock
Subject: RE: Public Access To FOT Dialog
<< I bet we have at least one in the FOT >> Yep, that's me. You've
probably gotten to my post now which outlines the elements of defamation
(either by libel or by slander). Truth is always a defense. But, as you
say, PROVING truth is the punishment for speaking freely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Babcock [mailto:BillB@bnj.com]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 4:12 PM
To: 'Dave Riddle'; fot@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Public Access To FOT Dialog
Actually the bar is not very high for either libel or slander--someone
simply has to want to take action. In essence you can sue anyone for
anything. You probably will not prevail unless your case is strong or your
lawyer is good and the other person's isn't. The punishment of lawsuits is
having to respond to them. The legal system is a huge pain in the ass and
expensive (and boring) to play with.
Truth is advantageous, but not a sure defense--besides, what exactly is
true? Even the laws of physics have a lot of wiggle room.
But postings in the FOT present no particular hazard, and in fact are
probably more defensible than some other venues in that the communication
is established as opinion. Opinion is protected to some degree, whereas
false statements that hurt someone else are not.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. Actually I simply spend
entirely too much time with them and most of the issues I have to deal
with concern intellectual property. I bet we have at least one in the
FOT--they are fairly common in the male over 30 population of the U.S..
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Riddle [mailto:dave@microworks.net]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 12:09 PM
To: fot@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: Public Access To FOT Dialog
I can't help you with your first question, but I would think in regards to
your second question that you would be protected (if you're here in the
US)
under the First Amendment as long as you what you are reporting is your
experience or what you have heard. For someone to make a case of libel or
slander (written or verbal) is a pretty high bar to cross that must show
that not only did you knowingly say or report that which you knew to be
false and but that did so with the intent to harm.
At 02:43 PM 12/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>FOTers
>
> When doing a Google search today, I was surprised to find
>references to specific dialogs taking place within team.net archives. I
>am wondering how much of the FOT dialog is publicly available in the
>archives?
>
> Secondly, in consideration of this public access, how careful
>do we need to be about providing candid and frank criticisms of
>specific products/companies ? Do we avoid our comments being recorded
>if we respond directly to the FOT person rather than cc: the whole FOT
>group ?
>
>Cary
|