Doug Charney
Contributor
"Obviously he has sustained damages," Elder said of Nicosia, "both physical and financially, as well as mentally from this onslaught of behavior."
How does that compare to losing your legs??
What a prick!
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
"Obviously he has sustained damages," Elder said of Nicosia, "both physical and financially, as well as mentally from this onslaught of behavior."
Also, the fact that the defense that the information is essentially true (as in the guy was found guilty in court) is generally considered a bullet-proof defense.
I'm sure I remember fish n chips tasting better when wrapped in the local rag.
Have you been drinking again, LakeCountyDiver?
No one gives a thought to the pain and suffering the doctor went through, not only due to the trauma of having known he caused a debilitating injury but the odds are he's facing an expensive repair bill to the boat propeller.
Unfortunately, the defense itself, right or wrong, can be extremely costly and time consuming... Never a fun thing...
I am not a lawyer, either, but I used to teach journalism, which includes the issue of libel.
While truth is a defense, it is not an absolute defense. Libel includes the concept of malice. If you are writing with the only real intention being to hurt this person, then malice comes into play. You can thus write the truth and still be guilty of libel. It is not, however, a cut and dried affair.
Let's say I found out that a neighbor of mine has a teenage son with a bed wetting problem. I post this information and ridicule him. He is not a public figure, and the public does not benefit from this knowledge. My only purpose is to harm his reputation. Even though the information is true, I would almost certainly be found guilty of libel if I were sued.
In another thread currently going on SB, someone asked about taking online classes through a scuba agency called SDA (Scuba Divers of America). I made a couple of posts in which I revealed that I had personally investigated this agency and shown them to be a fraud. In my posts, I am definitely trying to hurt their business because they are misrepresenting themselves and the validity of what they are selling. In this case, my purpose is not malicious--the public needs to know this information so that others are not pulled in by the scam and lose their money. I am therefore not guilty of libel.
I think.
If you look at the lawsuit being brought against SB and 100 of its participants, it appears to be the same sort of thing. There was a definite, proven, bad situation resulting in a man's death, and a number of SB participants wrote repeatedly about the organization and person involved with the intention of seeing to it that people knew who this was (under a new business name) and could be warned. That person is suing SB and the posters for defamation and lost business, exactly as is being done in this case. With my previous understanding of libel, I would have expected it to be thrown out of court immediately, but, by golly, it is still going on after a year of legal wrangling.
...You can thus write the truth and still be guilty of libel. ... I would almost certainly be found guilty of libel if I were sued.