Slashdot Mirror

Perhaps this is merely defamation of character...

Even that isn't supported by what the article said, because there's no indication in the article that he actually distributed them.

From here:

Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Element (2) wouldn't have been satisfied if he just had them lying around his home.

But I certainly think the guy done wrong (if he did the act that's alleged).

Wrong? Probably. At least very creepy. A criminal or civil offense? Probably not.

This is from the EFF, giving good guidelines on what constitutes defamation.

Note that what makes this really tricky for the online world is that in most cases defamation is a state matter, not a Federal one, making jurisdiction a tough issue. Different states have different qualifications for defamation, one of the most relevant being whether or not the defendant knowingly made false statements about the plaintiff.

As an example, note the qualifications for defamation in Minnesota

This info about defamation law is helpful. The plaintiff does have a burden of showing that the statements they are suing for are in fact false. Of course the trial itself will determine if the claims are indeed false and were actually damaging.

The issue is whether the plaintiff can compel the ISP to reveal the name of the person who may have committed the slander.

from: http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Defamatory statements must be communicated to a third party. You cannot defame someone by speaking to them alone, or by muttering to yourself. This element of defamation is virtually always satisfied when claims are made against newspapers and broadcast media.

(Isn't that why they have John Doe cases in the first place? not just when the name is unknown.)

In the US, defamation is a blanket term for both slander and libel, neither of which applies to a true statement. Here's a bit of additional info on the subject.

These fraudulent practices are just making every investor cringe and become hesitant to invest in the market. There should be a law against any act which deliberately causes injury to the reputation of Wall Street and makes the general population lose confidence in the system. Laws against frauds are obviously not enough. We already have defamation laws for damaging an individual's reputation... However, the impact of these acts (Enron, Worldcom, others to follow) will be felt by millions for years and nothing will prevent other financial giants from doing the same in the future. A new law could simply be an extra deterrent.

A year ago, if you had invested 1000$ in beer you would have more money returning the bottles today than if you bought Enron Stocks then and sold them today.

Can't the above be argued as my personal interpretations of said persons?

No, because you made factual allegations. Whether or not the person is satanic or a pedophile is not a matter of your personal opinion. There are various defenses to slander. Read this page if you're interested. I read it because it was linked to from eBay's page about feedback removal. IANAL.