Is this a case of Libel?

[Shay-Pari'e]

LIBEL PER QUOD

The second type of libel is committed by inference and is more "hidden." Its legal term, libel per quod, means "because of circumstance" or "by means of circumstance." In libel per quod, the statements, words or phrases involved maybe harmless in themselves, but become libelous because of attached circumstances. Usually, such circumstances are unforeseen by the publisher, who can claim that the questionable material was published in good faith and without malice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Usually, such circumstances are unforeseen by the publisher, who can claim that the questionable material was published in good faith and without malice.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The poster stated the facts. Was he being questioned? Yes, he was. How is that liable per say ?

 

[meganproser]

Paradise, you managed to find the absolute worst explanation of libel that I’ve ever seen. Some grossly unqualified individual has attempted to explain the law here. Some of it is downright incomprehensible:

"In a libel suit, if the defamatory material is libelous in itself, the court decides on the interpretation of the words and phrases involved; the news medium does not. If the court decides the material can be understood as libelous by the public, the publisher involved has no argument."

What in the hell is this guy trying to say?

The poster stated the facts. Was he being questioned? Yes, he was. How is that liable per say?

"In addition when you went to the District Attorneys office did you report of all the fraudulent credits hours which were purchased from you at the University of XXXXXXXXXX"

The writer is not asking OP is he ever sold fraudulent hours. The writer states that the criminal activity occurred; he only ASKS if the OP confessed to his crime.

"How about all of the fraudulent State Funding applications you have submitted to help your fellow students get their financial aide... There are paper trails... "

Again, he states as fact that OP has submitted fraudulent applications and he goes on to imply he has first hand knowledge that there is proof of such. He doesn’t seem to be asking any question.

This writer has flat out accused OP of committing crimes, implying he has direct knowledge of such. There is NO question that this is libel per se.