The truth as a defense is for claims of defamation. From the reporting of the case, this sounds like the plaintiff won on an "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "intentional interference with contract" and/or "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage" claim, all of which are tort claims (personal injury).
Look at it this way...if you were really obese, and someone kept taunting you, day in and day out, saying "You are fat and going to die", you could sue them for emotional harm *even though* those two statements are patently true.
And, yes, I'm a lawyer, *and* I played one on TV.:-)
If you find the tactics and motivations of professional spammers interesting, you may find a recent white paper published by Vircom, "Why Spammers Spam", interesting.
http://www.vircom.com/Products/Modus3/Whitepaper s. asp
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! Nope..I'm neither the author, nor (any of) the women about whom he is complaining.
The truth as a defense is for claims of defamation. From the reporting of the case, this sounds like the plaintiff won on an "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and "intentional interference with contract" and/or "intentional interference with prospective economic advantage" claim, all of which are tort claims (personal injury). Look at it this way...if you were really obese, and someone kept taunting you, day in and day out, saying "You are fat and going to die", you could sue them for emotional harm *even though* those two statements are patently true. And, yes, I'm a lawyer, *and* I played one on TV. :-)
If you find the tactics and motivations of professional spammers interesting, you may find a recent white paper published by Vircom, "Why Spammers Spam", interesting.
r s. asp
http://www.vircom.com/Products/Modus3/Whitepape
Anne M.