Libel?

[oudidntno]

What is the name of your state? Georgia

Quick question- someone recently wrote and sent me a hostile email that falsely denigrated my character, personality, and integrity. Though I don't plan to sue, would it be considered libel even though she sent it only to me. I thought it would be "libel" by definition though I can't receive recompense since she has not distributed the email to third parties yet. Am I right?

 

[cbg]

No, you're not. Since it wasn't distributed to a third party, all the elements to prove libel are not present.

 

[buckbill]

In order to have any kiind of case; someone else would have to see it. If it was directly sent to another person and if the person was negatively influenced by the e-mail.

 

[oudidntno]

No, you're not. Since it wasn't distributed to a third party, all the elements to prove libel are not present.

Actually, I'm not looking to prove a case for a lawsuit, just see if these examples follow definitions. I thought all the elements for recompensable defamation were not present since the libel was not sent to a third party, but, because the person typed the false, damaging comments and sent them to another person (me), technically the email was still libel. Seriously, I'm not planning to sue and actually laughed at the matter. I just wanted to clarify what was the minimum point an email went from just containing false accusations to libel. Same goes for slander. I guess I'm looking at this like a lie. A lie is still a lie even if no one else hears it or believes it, but you couldn't sue unless someone spread that lie to others. I'm not trying to argue this point just seek clarification.

 

[Ohiogal]

And CBG told you. It is NOT libel.

 

[ForFun]

because the person typed the false, damaging comments and sent them to another person (me), technically the email was still libel.

To clarify cbg...

Publishing the defamatory statements to 3rd parties is within the definition of libel. Therefore, without such publication, there is no libel.