[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Intel v. Randal Schwartz: Why care?
In <adtDKor62.u5@netcom.com> adt@netcom.com (Anthony D. Tribelli) writes:
>Jack Wilson (deejay@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Unless you name specific people and places, you are basically slandering
>: Randal Schwartz. Either name names, or retract your statement, as it might
>: save you a lot of discomfort.
>In order to be slander, don't the statements have to be false? If the
>statements are true then the author has committed no offense, although
>there is the danger of harassment and/or retaliation.
Truth is a defence I think (but am not sure), but you must be able to prove the statement true in
a court of law. Simply claiming that it is true is not enough.
One might argue that in this case, Randell has injected himself into the
discussion as a public person and that one could try to use the defence
against libel/slander for a public person( where malice must be shown).
However, it is not clear that that would succeed here.
--
Bill Unruh
unruh@physics.ubc.ca
Follow-Ups:
References: