This was inspired by the whole Depp/Heard conflict. If I write an article alleging that someone (Person A) attacked me, but does not identify them, what standing (not sure that’s the right word) does Person A have to sue me?
EDIT: Changed the title from “slander” after ekedolphin rightly pointed out my error.
I’m not sure from a legal standpoint, but let’s define terms:
Slander is when you say something; the term you’re looking for is “libel”, when you write something.
What do you mean? Like, I write an article saying “a member of the SDMB beat me in an alleyway,” but I don’t say who it is?
Yes. My understanding of the Depp/Heard issue is that she wrote that someone to whom she’d been married had abused her, but did not identify them. Is that enough to allow him to sue her?
Well, she hasn’t been married before (according to Wikipedia, at least). So “someone to whom she’d been married” must be Depp.
In a more ambiguous case, I have no idea. I know that burden of proof is on the plaintiff in libel suits.
Say I wanted to sue Carly Simon for all the mean and untruthful things she said about me in You’re So Vain. I think I’d have to first prove that the song is about me before I could get traction anywhere else. I’d also have to prove that the song has damaged me, which would be very difficult since she was always famously cagey about the subject.
If a reasonable person could infer that the anonymous subject of the libel could only be a specific individual and they can demonstrate that some material harm to reputation or financial loss occurred due to the libel (loss of employment opportunities, costs to defend reputation, et cetera) the complainant can bring a civil suit for compensation. The larger problem is demonstrating that the defendant made statements that were manifestly false and acted with actual malice, e.g. “with knowledge that it was false or with disregard of whether it was false or not.” The twist is that the act of bringing such a suit itself can be viewed as an attempt at defamation and the defendant can also counterclaim for harms arising from the suit (similar harms to reputation, financial loss, legal fees) and in fact that is a typical response from a defendant who believes themselves to be wronged by the suit, or is just mounting an aggressive defense in an effort to settle the claim privately.
Stranger
Actual malice is only required if the plaintiff is a public figure. If I am at trial for insinuating Love_Rhombus beat me up, they only need to prove negligence. Assuming Love_Rhombus isn’t secretly Johnny Depp.
Fair point but applicable in the case mentioned by the o.p.
Stranger
She has stated it was about Warren Beatty.. But I’m pretty sure it’s about me.
You’re not vain enough.
Stranger
She’s stated only the second verse is about Beatty; the other verses are about two other (still unidentified) people, one of whom could be Johnny Bravo. And the other of which could be you!
Well, you’d also need to prove it wasn’t true. It’s my understanding that if you can prove the allegation is true, you have no case for slander or libel.
In England and elsewhere that is not the case. You can sue someone for simply exposing information that is damaging to you, although the truth of the statements may be a defense it’s not automatic like here in the US.
Here in the US it is not always necessary to prove that statements are defamatory as some statements are considered defamation per se. The list looks rather archaic now and even calling someone ‘mentally ill’ will be disregarded for other reasons. Perhaps revealing someone is infected with a “loathsome disease” would sustain a case for defamation on that basis.
Meanwhile, Jack Donaghy maintains that the song was in fact written by him.
I’m certain it is. At least two young women clearly stated that I was that vain, and this happened at a time proximate to the song’s release so they must have been correct.
I thought one of the vain people was Bennet Cerf’s son.
That worked for Cardi B.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/entertainment/cardi-b-tasha-k-defamation-lawsuit/index.html
In this case, the “loathsome disease” was Herpes. That was only one of the issues though.
It’s not defamation, but there is a tort of “public disclosure of private facts” where truth is not a defense.
Privacy law has been developing here [UK] too in the past 20 years or so, influenced by European privacy laws and rascally law firms willing to make money out of it.
There was a very recent case in Australia where a senior government minister was forced to resign because of an allegation made that he had committed rape about 30 years earlier. The victim made statements supporting the allegation and later committed suicide. Although not named, the minister Christian Porter came out and said they were about him and he denied them, and launched a defamation case against the media, on the basis that he was ‘readily identifiable’ despite the claims being anonymised. He withdrew the case after a while.