Massachusetts nonprofit turns people away

[Zigner]

You did not say in what state this organization operates and that matters because much of the law that governs what is going on here is state law.

Psstt...
It's in the title: "Massachusetts nonprofit turns people away"

 

[quincy]

Massachusetts. It is in the title of the thread. I posted a link to Massachusetts defamation law.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Psstt...
It's in the title: "Massachusetts nonprofit turns people away"

So it is. Thanks for pointing out what I (obviously) missed.

Massachusetts is one of the states that has a separate form of corporation known as a nonprofit corporation. Nonprofit corporations may be formed for a variety of purposes; they are not limited to just charities. They have many of the same powers as regular corporations, but with restrictions in how they deal with their own stock. However, if they are charities they do have some additional limitations. There is nothing I see in Massachusetts law that would require a nonprofit corporation to accept all offered donations or to accept all offers for volunteers.

 

[quincy]

There was nothing I found that would force a nonprofit in Massachusetts to accept donations or volunteers. The nonprofit appears to have acted within the law and within their rights.

Whether or not there was defamation seems to be the only question - and that is best discussed with an attorney in Massachusetts who is familiar with defamation of public figures.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Massachusetts. It is in the title of the thread. I posted a link to Massachusetts defamation law.

I didn't delve into the defamation part since you already covered that anyway. I'll just add for the OP's benefit that if he or she is indeed a "local celebrity" there is the additional hurdle that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that for a public person to succeed in a defamation claim he or she must prove the defendant acted with malice in addition to the other elements of the claim. The link you provided only mentioned that all public officials are considered public persons and are subject to the malice standard and did not make clear that, as a matter of federal law, the malice standard applies to celebrities, too, not just government officials.

 

[quincy]

I didn't delve into the defamation part since you already covered that anyway. I'll just add for the OP's benefit that if he or she is indeed a "local celebrity" there is the additional hurdle that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that for a public person to succeed in a defamation claim he or she must prove the defendant acted with malice in addition to the other elements of the claim. The link you provided only mentioned that all public officials are considered public persons and are subject to the malice standard and did not make clear that, as a matter of federal law, the malice standard applies to celebrities, too, not just government officials.

Public figures, yes. There is a higher standard of fault (actual malice) for public figures.

But It depends on what defamatory words were spoken, why they were spoken, and the context.

A public figure is also a private figure, so the exact words spoken matter.