If it comes down to it, I think "Fair comment on a matter of public interest" is Jones best defence.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Defences to claims of defamation include: > > - *Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were > true * are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the > court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care > expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person > might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would > be > expected to carefully check multiple sources. > - *Opinion * is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If > the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than > a > statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because > opinions are inherently not falsifiable . However, some jurisdictions > decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The > United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First > Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion > privilege.[28]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander#cite_note-27> > - *Fair comment on a matter of public interest *, arguments made with > an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as > regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if > such arguments are logically unsound ; if a reasonable person could > honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected. > - *Consent * is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the > claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement. > - *Innocent > disseminatio<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination> > * is a defense available when a defendan had no actual knowledge of > the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was > defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to > negligence . Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering > a > sealed defamatory letter. > - Claimant is *incapable of further defamation*–e.g., the claimant's > position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further > damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", > since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a > libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad > reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have > been caused by the making of the statement. > - Statute of limitations . Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be > brought within a limited period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a > mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet, the statute of > limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the > plaintiff > first learns of the > communication.[29]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander#cite_note-28> > - *No Third-party communication*: If an employer were to bring an > employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling > company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no one > other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false > statement. > - *No actual injury*: If there *is* third-party communication, but the > third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the > statement, > or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse. > > In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly > defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an > insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is *prima > facie <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie>* not libelous. Also, the > *public figure* doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be > used as a defense. > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones >> Beene from any possible legal harm? >> >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic "pump >>>> and >>>> dump" scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is >>>> too >>>> late . . . >>>> >>> >>> It can be argued in what sense? Are you or are you not accusing people of >>> criminal activities? Do you have any evidence for this? Is there some kind >>> of connection between the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group and Defkalion? >>> >>> Perhaps this entire discussion is hypothetical, and you are only saying >>> that it is possible this is a scam. Or that there have been scams in the >>> past that resembled this. It that is what you mean -- and you are NOT >>> actually accusing anyone of anything -- please say so. >>> >>> You seem to have no grasp how much trouble you might cause by publishing >>> inflammatory false rumors about people. Libel will get them in trouble, and >>> you in trouble, and possibly this entire forum in trouble. >>> >>> Of course if you have information, that is another matter entirely. In >>> that case you have a civic duty to contact authorities. >>> >>> It is one thing to accuse Rossi, Levi, E&K of being incompetent as you >>> have so often done. This is a science discussion forum, and you have every >>> right to make such assertions. They can cause no harm to anything other than >>> your reputation. Even if you are right, it is not against the law for >>> scientists to make stupid mistakes. If it were, all scientists would be in >>> jail. It is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER for you to accuse people of >>> conspiring to commit seriously unlawful acts involving huge sums of money. >>> >>> This is a serious matter. Think it over before responding. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >> >
