Quote:
Originally Posted by Legalguide
Please bear in mind that post#6 would be considered libelous by US law. They would be considered assertion of fact, not opinion. The person in question would not be considered a public figure. And the burden of proof on the factual veracity of those statements in post #6 would be on the person who said them. The person, or in this case persons libeled are not responsible to prove the statement is false, only that they are harmed by it. The person making the statement would have to prove the statement is true in order to reduce or eliminate any court judgement. Also, the objection made by the parties that have been named is sufficient in the eyes of the legal system to constitute a request for a retraction. Publishing a retraction will also reduce a court judgement, but failing to do so would also be considered in determining damages.
Also, the general rule is that anyone who repeats a defamatory statement is just as liable as the person who originally made it.
Best,
LG
|
Hey Legalguide, are you wearing your Perry Mason secret decoder ring?