slander whilst writing a book

[beaufoy]

I am writing a book pertaining to miscarriages of justice in england. I wrote to an ex BBC journalist asking if he would be interested in doing research for said book. Whilst writing a few e mails to said journalists I informed him that I had received info (making references to people involved)on alleged acts of corruption on the part of police/cps ect ect. The BBC journalists declined the offer to help with the book, and claimed/suggested by just writing an e mail to him containing names of people I was/am investigating I had broken the English slander laws. In my own opinion I have not broken said laws.
I understand that if I write numerous e mails to neighbours or work colleagues of a certain person then I am bringing his character into question for no other reason than to do so hence i could be guilty of defamation, but I didn't do this I wrote to the ex journalist C/O his work e mail address and to his own personal e mail address. In order to catch his attention and help facilitate his help I proved that I had knowledge of specific alleged cases of corruption by mentioning them.
I would also like to point out that I informed the journalist that some of my info had been sourced from informers and some had been gathered from the internet. I suggested to him that said info would have to be verified before putting in a book. I also pointed out that if a person claimed that police ect had lied and the police claim they didn't lie, and there was no evidence to back either the police or the person then said allegation would not make the book.
Also I believe I cannot be accused of defamation if I have good evidence that act of corruption happened and the person I named was the culprit, and that I genuinely believed/believe the person named is guilty.

 

[Ohiogal]

I am writing a book pertaining to miscarriages of justice in england. I wrote to an ex BBC journalist asking if he would be interested in doing research for said book. Whilst writing a few e mails to said journalists I informed him that I had received info (making references to people involved)on alleged acts of corruption on the part of police/cps ect ect. The BBC journalists declined the offer to help with the book, and claimed/suggested by just writing an e mail to him containing names of people I was/am investigating I had broken the English slander laws. In my own opinion I have not broken said laws.
I understand that if I write numerous e mails to neighbours or work colleagues of a certain person then I am bringing his character into question for no other reason than to do so hence i could be guilty of defamation, but I didn't do this I wrote to the ex journalist C/O his work e mail address and to his own personal e mail address. In order to catch his attention and help facilitate his help I proved that I had knowledge of specific alleged cases of corruption by mentioning them.
I would also like to point out that I informed the journalist that some of my info had been sourced from informers and some had been gathered from the internet. I suggested to him that said info would have to be verified before putting in a book. I also pointed out that if a person claimed that police ect had lied and the police claim they didn't lie, and there was no evidence to back either the police or the person then said allegation would not make the book.
Also I believe I cannot be accused of defamation if I have good evidence that act of corruption happened and the person I named was the culprit, and that I genuinely believed/believe the person named is guilty.

Okay. Thank you for your opinion. However this is a forum dedicated to law in the United States where we answer questions of a legal type. Your post deals with England AND doesn't ask a question.

 

[quincy]

Okay. Thank you for your opinion. However this is a forum dedicated to law in the United States where we answer questions of a legal type. Your post deals with England AND doesn't ask a question.

Picky, picky, OG.

As a note to beaufoy, though: Written defamation is called libel not slander (which is its oral form), and you can defame someone through an email (defamation just requires publication to a third party) and truth is a defense to defamation (so if you can prove corruption on the part of an individual, you have not defamed that individual by calling him corrupt).

All of this holds true in both the U.S. and England.

I suggest you review defamation laws before proceeding with the investigations for your book.

 

[beaufoy]

Picky, picky, OG.

As a note to beaufoy, though: Written defamation is called libel not slander (which is its oral form), and you can defame someone through an email (defamation just requires publication to a third party) and truth is a defense to defamation (so if you can prove corruption on the part of an individual, you have not defamed that individual by calling him corrupt).

All of this holds true in both the U.S. and England.

I suggest you review defamation laws before proceeding with the investigations for your book.

First of all I apologize for using the word Slander this was wrong. Now to the point of your reply, I already know all that you have written; it is a very basic definition. The reason the question was asked was I consider my position to be different. If I had written said e mails not in connection with a book then maybe a slander charge could be made at me, but my position is different how can I research a book concerning corruption without citing possible/probably examples. You have to remember said examples would be investigated and proved before publication. There is another point this word prove, I have read transcripts of hearings where the judge accepts someones word as proof with no back up evidence. I have also seen legal police papers where it is claimed that three conflicting statements by a defendant does not represent proof that the defendant lied on any statement. I have also seen high court papers where a judge (QC) rejects the idea that an e mail proves what was written in it. He did not dispute the e mail was genuine. He did not deny receiving the e mail as an exhibit. The court papers referred to the e mail so we have to assume if the judge read the papers he would have been directed to the e mail, and if the e mail had gone missing he would have made reference to a missing e mail. Instead he stated there was no proof of what was written in the e mail

 

[cbg]

What part of US Law Only did you not understand?

 

[quincy]

First of all I apologize for using the word Slander this was wrong. Now to the point of your reply, I already know all that you have written; it is a very basic definition. The reason the question was asked was I consider my position to be different. If I had written said e mails not in connection with a book then maybe a slander charge could be made at me, but my position is different how can I research a book concerning corruption without citing possible/probably examples. You have to remember said examples would be investigated and proved before publication. There is another point this word prove, I have read transcripts of hearings where the judge accepts someones word as proof with no back up evidence. I have also seen legal police papers where it is claimed that three conflicting statements by a defendant does not represent proof that the defendant lied on any statement. I have also seen high court papers where a judge (QC) rejects the idea that an e mail proves what was written in it. He did not dispute the e mail was genuine. He did not deny receiving the e mail as an exhibit. The court papers referred to the e mail so we have to assume if the judge read the papers he would have been directed to the e mail, and if the e mail had gone missing he would have made reference to a missing e mail. Instead he stated there was no proof of what was written in the e mail

And what U.S. state are you in, beaufoy?

As an additional note, though: The fact that you are writing a book and gathering facts for the book does not mean you get to defame people. Not sure where you got that idea.

 

[beaufoy]

And what U.S. state are you in, beaufoy?

As an additional note, though: The fact that you are writing a book and gathering facts for the book does not mean you get to defame people. Not sure where you got that idea.

Privilege can be used by someone who finds themselves in a position in which it seems a necessity, either moral, legal, social, to impart certain information to another who has an interest.
I believe imparting info to a potential researcher of the book is covered by the above

 

[Eekamouse]

We broke with England and became our very own country a while back. Didn't anyone tell you? Perhaps you ought to spend some time researching that before moving on to your book venture.

 

[quincy]

Privilege can be used by someone who finds themselves in a position in which it seems a necessity, either moral, legal, social, to impart certain information to another who has an interest.
I believe imparting info to a potential researcher of the book is covered by the above

What US state are you in, beaufoy?

First, figure out what US state you are in, or what country you are in, and then start your book research by researching the laws that govern writers in that state or country, especially libel laws. In the US, libel laws vary by state, and libel laws vary in significant ways between countries.

For a good look at what writers need to be aware of in the US, use the following Knight Community News Network site link and scroll down to "Top Ten Rules for Limiting Legal Risks:" http://www.kcnn.org/modules/

Read through all of the information you find there.

A very basic rule of journalism/writing, wherever it is you are located, is that all laws must be obeyed when researching, gathering and reporting stories. The fact that you are writing a book does not make you immune from criminal or civil actions filed against you.