Thursday, June 4, 2009

The Truth Shall Set You Free!!!

Things are getting really strange - got a threat today...............

"Substantial Truth
"Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Time Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 411 (1967). Consequently, a plaintiff has to provide convincing evidence of a defamatory statement's falsity in order to prove defamation.
The law does not require that a statement must be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered "true." Courts have said that some false statements must be protected for the wider purpose of allowing the dissemination of truthful speech. The resulting doctrine is known as "substantial truth." Under the substantial truth doctrine, minor factual inaccuracies will be ignored so long as the inaccuracies do not materially alter the substance or impact of what is being communicated. In other words, only the "gist" or "sting" of a statement must be correct.
The substantial truth defense is particularly powerful because a judge will often grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant (thus disposing of the case before it goes to trial) if the defendant can show that the statement the plaintiff is complaining about is substantially true, making the defense a quick and relatively easy way to get out of a long (and potentially expensive) defamation case. "


"In Virginia, the elements of a defamation claim are publication of an actionable statement with the requisite fault on the part of the defendant. To be “actionable,” the statement must be a false statement of fact that harms the plaintiff's reputation in the community or deters other persons from associating with him or her. "



hoppytoad79 said...

Someone made threats of suing you for defamation, or someone's made threats to smear your name? If it's the former, someone is about to learn the expensive way that just because something isn't flattering doesn't mean it's defamation/slander/libel. If it's the latter, if they try, may you make road pizza of them.

P_L_I_A_J said...

Sad to say, Paul's wife, Kelly, called me up to tell me to expect to be contacted by her attorney. Sad for her, because everything here is true. I hope she spends lots of Paul's money.

John Edwards did not bother to sue the Enquirer when he was exposed for cheating (and he is a hot shot lawyer!!)because he knew that he would lose because it was true. I wonder if Paul has her convinced that I am lying? Wouldn't surprise me based on what Paul told me about her.