It seems to me that a lot of the stuff that is posted in the pit is slanderous material. Such as when a real person is actually named and “raked over the coals”. My question is this. At what point is it slanderous to say the things that are said? Where is the line drawn? IANAL but it doesn’t seem to me that it would make any difference that the targeted person would probably never see it.
I think it’s only slander if it does material harm. If someone says ‘Derleth is a one-armed hunchback with murderous intentions!’ (a la Richard III) it would not materially harm me, because nobody in my life knows I’m Derleth. And since there is no concrete way of linking anyone specific with Derleth, nobody could prove that insults directed at Derleth did them material harm.
I suspect that holds true with most Dopers. But even if a username can be concretely linked to a person, it would be very tough going to prove that something said on a message board harmed a person in their personal lives.
Expressing your opinion about someone (e.g. John Doe is a butthead) is never slander. Slander, as I understand it, occurs when you state facts about a person with the intent of having people believe they are true. That rules out editorial comments and obvious parodies.
That’s falsehoods, or lies, not facts. If I can find damaging facts, I’m within my rights to speak them.
See the Zenger case for details.
Defamation lawyer here. (So this time I really am an expert, and the law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).
Slander is always spoken. So, the pit isn’t slanderous, ever.
Libel is written. An unture statement of fact about a person that is damaging to their reputation is libelous and actionable. Calling someone a horse’s ass is not a statement of fact, but rather an opinion, and not defamation.
There are a lot of gray areas as to what is defamatory and what isn’t. But caution in the pit might be wise.
Thanks for the replies. The thread that got my attention and made me wonder was this one:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=95475
Just the title alone, to me, was suspect.
As for the thread that got your attention, since John Ashcroft is a pulic figure, he is fair game, as public figures are not allowed to sue for slander or libel.
So you can say what you wish about him, until such time as he leaves office.
How often has a pit rant/attack actually named (IRL name) and gone after a non-public figure. I’m not a pit regular but I can barely recall seeing anyone “named” and then attacked in this fashion.
Which offers the question of whether you can be sued for libel by attacking someone using their board ID pseudonyn and what IRL legal damage someone could claim in such an attack. Emotional distress via digital duress? What?
I don’t think it’s correct that public figures CAN’T sue for slander or libel, it’s that they must always prove the additional element of intent to defame (I think). Where’s DPWhite when we need him/her?
As I recall, public figures may bring defamation suits but must demonstrate “actual malice” on the part of the defendant. Think about all those suits against the National Enquirer.
With respect to damages, my recollection is that in libel cases, harm to reputation is presumed (if the other elements are shown). Whether it is actionable to defame someone’s online persona is an interesting question, but I would love to see a cite either way.
Finally, note that the law of defamation can vary among jurisdictions.
(Standard disclaimer about legal advice)
Maybe I should rephrase my statement to read “…elected public figures.”
You can pretty much rake a politician over the coals, so long as you don’t accuse him of crimes against the state or morality.
DPWhite? You out there?
This isn’t true, actually. It’s just that the test for defamation as applied to public figures requires a showing of “actual malice” to sustain the charge as well as falseness. Showing “actual malice” is hard, but not impossible. “Actual malice” means, approximately, that the publisher or speaker had the intent to injure and either knew the defamatory speech was false or failed to make a reasonable effort (under the circumstances) to investigate the verity of the claims made.
“Public figure” applies to: government officials, whether elected or appointed; celebrities; prominent businessmen; and virtually anyone else who is thrust into public prominence, whether or not willfully.
Harm to reputation in libel is not presumed except in certain traditional categories (these being allegations of gross criminal conduct, allegations of gross sexual wantonness, allegations of being afflicted with a loathsome disease, or allegations of grossly dishonest business practices, IIRC).
The law of defamation does vary somewhat across jurisdictions, but in most cases the limit of what is actionable defamation is determined by the Constitution, which does not vary across American jurisdictions.
I agree that the US Constitution protects certain speech, whether you’re in New Jersey or Alabama. I’m not sure if you’re responding to my earlier comment, but in any event I was referring to both American and foreign jurisdictions.
I think you may be confusing libel with slander.
My understanding is as follows:
In libel actions, harm to reputation is generally presumed, with certain limited exceptions, such as when the libelous statement must be understood in connection with extrinsic facts.
In slander actions, harm to reputation is generally not presumed, unless the statement is “slander per se”
Slander per se includes the categories you described above.
But its been a long time since I’ve studied this stuff, and I’d love to see a cite.
Public figures, or limited purpose public figures (for example if you are discussing one person related to a news story and otherwise not famous) must demonstrate “actual malice” defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. I have not read the subject thread yet. But they can sue.
Falwell and Limbaugh when accusing Clinton of being connected to 60 murders certainly could have sued (and included their networks) and if a jury had found for him, then it would not have been overturned except by the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court, which is a purely political arm of the Republican Party when push comes to shove.
Okay, Ashcroft is a commie fascist crypto pinkie, or whatever. This is opinion, and not actionable. As certain people on this board may recall, I have actually pointed out to certain people that their opinion was a fascist opinion, to which they (presumably as a leftist) took umbarage. (The opinion was quite fascist.) That is not actionable. For example, I took a position, in the pit that national id cards were worth debating and might actually protect our loose system of civil rights. It would have been well within the scope of an opinion to have had someone suggest in this context that I was spouting a “totalitarian”, “commie” or “fascist” position. It would not have been actionable based on two kinds of defense: opinion and “truth” (having a reasonable basis if in fact a court thinks it is not opinion but a statement of fact).
As a practical matter, Presidents, members of Congress and Cabinet members don’t sue because they have plenty of opportunity in the press to deny and they simply don’t want to lend further legs to the rumor and don’t have time.
I try very hard not to take a “public figure” cases for plaintiffs because unless I can educate the judge (defamation cases are rare), they will conclude that it was fair game. Oh, and “slander” cases (spoken defamation) are usually a waste of time too. In fact I turn down upwards of 95% of defamation cases.
I just pulled out my copy of Mass Media Law to check this, as I really can’t recall. What I recall from when I took that class (with Professor Fred Cate, one of the leading experts in the field) is that the line between slander and libel is becoming legally quite fuzzy. Quoting from the casebook:
Marc Franklin et al., Mass Media Law: Cases and Materials, at 306 (6th ed., 2000)
On “libel per se”:
Id, at 310-311.
So, yes, I may have been confusing libel with slander, but apparently do a lot of other people, including the courts. I seem to recall that the state in which I went to law school is one of the states which was thusly confused, so my confusion is possibly warranted. 
Not in Scotland, at least, not really…
Even if what is being said is true, but it is only being said to cause harm, than the injured party has the right to sue. The veritas defence would not be open to you in such an instance.
I suppose technically you always have a right to speak the facts, but by doing so you hold yourself open to possible consequences.
If there is a public interest element to the facts - such as if they have a bearing on the person’s ability to hold public office - then, of course, you can argue that harm was not the intention of publicising the facts, or at least not the whole intention, which would probably be good enough.
Also not in some states if the action is brought in a state court in those states that say that truth is not a complete defense if there is actual malice. Illinois was one such state, and may still be. Federal courts have held contra.
All this could lead into an interesting direction, given the Internet technology and a board like the SDMB.
For example, many posters are criticized, sometimes called out in the pit threads. If pesch gets called a @@!!^% @!#$@^ son of a @%&# felcher, would I have cause to sue? And would I be a public person (because I push myself out into the spotlight through the SDMB?) or am I still a private person.
And if I lived in London, would I be able to sue in that court (celebrities seem to gain greater protection over there from the tabloids than they do in the US), or would I have to sue in the poster’s jurisdiction, or in the Straight Dope’s jurisdiction?
Whatever the answers would be, I would hate to be the one paying for all this.
The concept of a special rule of “actual malice” as an additional element for a successful defamation suit by a public figure is unique to the United States, as far as I know. The traditional common law view does not differentiate between public and private figures.
That’s a different cause of action, at least in some U.S. jurisdictions. In Wisconsin, such dissemination could be actionable as an invasion of privacy, which torts in Wisconsin include “intrusion upon plaintiff’s affairs or seclusion,” “publication of facts placing plaintiff in a false light” and “public disclosure of private facts.” In the latter the truth of the facts disclosed is not a defense, but in the second the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” It is also a criminal offense to threaten to reveal information about a person with the intent to damage their reputation or business (aka “blackmail”) and the truth of the information is not a defense to the charge.
As always IANAL and YJMV.