Question about libel

[lancenlynne]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Wisconsin

Let's say one finds libelous postings on a member only website. These postings allege child molestation and attempted rape against another person years ago.

The postings were copied along with the username and corresponding picture of that user identifying that person as the one posting this information.

Once again, this is a member only site so you have to be a member to access the postings. It is not posted anywhere else on the web that we know of. Is this enough for a libel suit? This is not a case for sueing for money, rather, a case to stop this person from posting any more libelous stories.

Does the accused in this case have to prove innocence or does the poster have to prove these allegations are true? How exactly do libel suits work?

Thanks in advance for any and all information.

 

[divgradcurl]

The postings were copied along with the username and corresponding picture of that user identifying that person as the one posting this information.

But was the person's ACTUAL name being used anywhere? Is the picture an ACTUAL picture of the person being defamed?

Once again, this is a member only site so you have to be a member to access the postings. It is not posted anywhere else on the web that we know of. Is this enough for a libel suit?

That's probably sufficient publication to meet that factor.

Does the accused in this case have to prove innocence or does the poster have to prove these allegations are true?

The person defamed, who is bringing the suit, would need to show that the defendant made a defamatory statement, that the statement was published (see above), that the statement refers to the plaintiff (see my first question above), and damages. Now, in this case, because the plaintiff is being accused of a serious crime, this would be "libel per se," which means damages would be presumed -- no need to show damages.

If the defendant can show that the statements are true, then there is no libel, period. Truth is an absolute defense.

Even if you don't want money damages, you'll still need to file a lawsuit in order to obtain injunctive relief (an order for them to stop what they are doing).

But now for the practical problems:

1. My first question above. Slandering a username or user ID is almost certainly insufficient to show that is "refers to the plaintiff."

2. Who is the defendant? You'll need a real name and address, not simply a username or user ID.

3. Where is the defendant located? If the defendant is located in a different state, you'll have to file the lawsuit in the defendant's home state. And you won't be able to recover the costs associated with traveling there for the suit. If the defendant is outside of the U.S., you'll need to first find out if what the defendant is doing is even illegal in his home country, and then travel there, etc.

 

[lancenlynne]

I'm sorry if I have confused you. The username and picture copied were of the person that is posting the libelous information not of the plantiff. However, in the posts the defendent says what state the plantiff lives in and uses first names. The defendent has also posted personal email between the two parties without permission.

The copies of the posts, username of the defendent and the picture posted on the website were copied as proof that this is the person doing the libelous postings.

The defendant is an exgirlfriend of the plantiff's. They have a child together who is now in their teens. It is interesting to note that none of these allegations were ever mentioned prior to last year when the plantiff was challenging a child support increase. There was a lot of tension between the parties due to this happening at the time.

Defendent lives in the state mentioned above. Plantiff lives in another state but has a cs attorney in the defendents state.

How exactly do these kinds of suits work and what is a judge looking for when deciding these cases?

If you need any more information please let me know.

Thanks again for any information provided.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Out of all of this drivel there is still one point you have failed to show. What 'damages' has the person who's name and photo were used suffered?

 

[JETX]

Actually, 'breezy' is wrong on this one. The claims being made do NOT require damages to be established as they would consist of 'per se' defamation.

So, back to the original post...
Do the statements being made refer SPECIFICALLY to an individual and do so sufficient to allow his/her peers to be able to identify the person?? If so, then it sounds like they would be defamation and likely actionable as such.

libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.

I would suggest that the 'victim' (or his/her attorney) write a letter to the 'owner' of the website demanding that the defamatory information be removed immediately, and if not, then threaten legal action. Any such letter must be sent by certified RRR mail.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And although I agree with Jet, my point in asking the question was to draw this poster out as to the FACTS of this situation. (i.e., has there ever been a police report made, abuse allegations investigated, what were the specific statements made? or does this poster actually know the entire story?)

Claiming that someone, even to the point of identifying them by name and photos, has been investigated for child molestation and attempted rape is in and of itself, not defamation per se if there is sufficient evidence that such charges were a part of the person's history.

And from this post, there are absolutely no specifics except that certain statements have been made against a particular identifiable person.

So, we're back to the basic premis that the truth, however foul it may be, is an absolute defense to libel/defamatin/slander.

 

[JETX]

my point in asking the question was to draw this poster out as to the FACTS of this situation. (i.e., has there ever been a police report made, abuse allegations investigated, what were the specific statements made? or does this poster actually know the entire story?)

Nice attempted spin.... but it simply doesn't work.
How is anyone supposed to assume that was your intent when you said, "Out of all of this drivel there is still one point you have failed to show. What 'damages' has the person who's name and photo were used suffered?"??

The TRUTH is that if the statements (allege child molestation and attempted rape) being made are not true, there is NO need for anyone to determine damages as they would be so 'heinous' on their own that the proving of damages or 'suffering' would not be needed.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And if wishes were fishes we'd all have a fry. But if the statements (whatever they were, we still don't know the specifics) were true, then the case is over.

Now, you still in a pissy mood or want to get off my ass for a minute.

 

[lancenlynne]

Okay....I will try this again.

The poster in this case is an ex girlfriend. She and the person she is posting about have a child together.

The username and picture is that of the poster. It was copied from the website she is posting on as proof that it is indeed she who is making these statements.

The poster has made specific comments that "he attempted to rape my best friend" and "he was having sex with young girls, he was 19 and 20 at the time". Given the age of the girls ( 9&12) this would not have been consentual sex. She has stated "He is nothing more than a child molester."

These allegations come up at a time when the poster and the person being defamed were going through a child support hearing. The poster was angry that the plantiff was seeking a reduction of child support. Prior to this, there were no allegations made.

The plantiff has never been charged with any type of these crimes. There is no past history of this on the plantiff. There have never been any charges brought to the authorities and no police reports have been made. In fact, it has never been brought up in family court or mediation either when the poster and plantiff were setting visitation schedules for their minor child, who by the way is female.

These statement do specifically state that the plantiff has done these things. The poster has posted personal emails from the plantiff that identifies his name and what state he lives in.

And yes, I do know the full story as I am very much involved in this also.

So please, any additional help is welcome. Thank you.

 

[divgradcurl]

You mentioned before that she only used first names. If that is true, that might not be sufficient to show "of and concerning" the plaintiff. First and last name together would be sufficient.

In any event, there are only a couple of things to do. If you want them to stop, you can file for a temporary restraining order -- but you'll need to file it in the court in her state and county.

If you want to stop her permanently, that will require filing a lawsuit for defamation, again in her state and county.

Your other options are to maybe get a lawyer to send her a cease-and-desist letter -- although that'll cost money, and if it doesn't work, then you'll still be left with the approaches above.

And finally, you could just forget about it. If she's crazy and nobody believes her anyway, that might be the best course of action.

 

[Market]

teller to stop, if that dont work then sue sue.