Libel suit against someone in another state

[quincy]

I think we'll agree that against public figures or of things of public interest the statute has been held to be unconstitutional. As to the statistics for private individuals, at least one site claims the statistic is .000 .

I tend not to consider any information provided from unnamed sources and sites.

The Massachusetts law is an odd one, for sure. And the criminal defamation laws that still exist and prosecuted are odd ones. There are many other additional state laws and cases that are odd ones. The odd laws are still used and the odd cases still make their way into courts and the odd cases can be won.

It was only a couple of years ago, for example, that New York defamation laws were changed so that calling someone "gay" was no longer considered defamatory (false accusation of a crime). Until that time, defamation cases were filed and won over claims of being called gay, and New York judges hearing these cases pleaded with state legislators to change the law. Being called gay can still support defamation law suits in other states that have not taken steps to change their laws.

 

[tranquility]

I tend not to consider any information provided from unnamed sources and sites.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-defamation-law

Substantial Truth

As a general matter, if a statement is substantially true, it cannot be actionable as defamation. See Milgroom v. News Group Boston, 412 Mass. 9, 12-13 (1992). Under Massachusetts statutory law, however, "truth shall be a justification unless actual malice is proved." M.G.L. c. 231 Section 92. This potential limitation on the truth defense is unlikely to be constitutional and, indeed, Massachusetts courts have held that it does not apply to cases involving public-figure or public-official plaintiffs or cases brought against media defendants that deal with matters of public concern. Materia v. Huff, 394 Mass. 328, 333 n.6 (1985); Shaari v. Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., 427 Mass. 129, 134 (1998). No court has applied the statute in a case brought by a private plaintiff that involves issues not of public concern.

It was only a couple of years ago, for example, that New York defamation laws were changed so that calling someone "gay" was no longer considered defamatory (false accusation of a crime). Until that time, defamation cases were filed and won over claims of being called gay, and New York judges hearing these cases pleaded with state legislators to change the law. Being called gay can still support defamation law suits in other states that have not taken steps to change their laws.

This was something I discussed here years ago and in school many years before that. (In regards to if it was defamatory at all.) While a statute is interesting, Lawrence v. Texas would take out any purported defamation from per se for criminality, wouldn't it?

 

[quincy]

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-defamation-law


This was something I discussed here years ago and in school many years before that. (In regards to if it was defamatory at all.) While a statute is interesting, Lawrence v. Texas would take out any purported defamation from per se for criminality, wouldn't it?

The Digital Media Law Project is a good resource. Thank you for providing your source.

There are still laws that state homosexuality is a crime and, in those states where the laws still stand, a person can pursue a defamation claim if they are falsely labeled gay. To falsely be called gay in those states is still considered a false accusation of a crime.

Even where being called gay is no longer defamation per se or where per se defamation is not recognized under state law, falsely being called gay can be defamatory and reputational injury can result, depending on context and all facts.

Personal reviews are often necessary because, for example, while it is easy to say that being called a liar is an opinion and not false fact, courts have ruled differently.