Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
Damages awarded for on-line defamatory statements by a parent
http://www.mross.com/law/Publication...?contentId=594
All I am saying is that if people put little comments about how they hate their teacher and that they are terrible and nasty, they open themselves up to litigation.
|
That link you provided says "The Court held that the serious, sweeping and
false defamatory statements were part of a prolonged character assassination campaign motivated by malice on the part of Halstead."
Emphasis mine...
And in the other case mentioned in yoru first link, it seems the sticky point was the term "Nazi", but calling the person a racist and an anti-semite were fine because they were both
true. That the guy was a Nazi in the judge's view wasn't an opinion, that was a false statement.
As for your quote, it's not relevant to defence of defamation that we're talking about. It says: "For the purpose of the law of libel, the hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement." That's only saying that putting an "I was told.." is not a defence. That's got nothing to do with personal opinions.
Yes, personal opinion gets to be fuzzy and where the line between expressing an opinion and character assasination is the whole reason these things go to trial. But I'll side with the lawyer in this discussion; truth is an absolute defence.
" I guess what I am trying to say is that personal opinions are not fact and are open for interpretation and law suits."
Right in that opinions are not fact.. and opinions aren't defamation. In extreme cases where someone is abusing someone else's freedoms then there'd be other factors at play.
EDITED: Fixed a missatement.