Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Truthful libel? (Score 5, Insightful) 301

By its very definition, libel is always untruthful.

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.

Semantics aside, here is the actual explanation for the ruling:

Noonan appealed to a three-member panel for the First Circuit, which initially upheld the ruling by Lasker. But last month it reversed itself on the libel claim, saying Noonan could pursue that part of his lawsuit because of a relatively obscure 1902 [Massachusetts] law.

The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement.

In ordinary discussions of First Amendment law, "actual malice" refers to the standard established in the landmark 1964 US Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

In that context, it means a plaintiff who is a public figure can win a libel suit only after proving that a journalist knew a published statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.

But in the Massachusetts law cited by the appeals court, "actual malice" means "malevolent intent or ill will," said the panel. Noonan might be able to persuade a jury that the company demonstrated ill will; Baitler had never referred to a fired employee by name in a mass e-mail before, and jurors might conclude he "singled out Noonan in order to humiliate him," the court wrote.

So we're talking about:

1) A state law.

2) A ruling that simply allows the guy to sue; it's not a final verdict by any means.

3) A very specific instance, that will eventually be settled in court anyway, as per 2).

So, I don't think this is anything for journalists to get overly anxious over, in truth.

Space

Submission + - "Puddles" of Water Sighted on Mars (newscientist.com)

eldavojohn writes: "Further reinforcing the theory of a wet Mars, NewScientist is reporting on what appear to be water puddles in newly taken images from the Mars rover. While these results are controversial, the assumption for these blue 'puddles' to be water rely on engineers measuring the uniform smoothness of the surface of them & also in their analysis of apparent opaqueness whereby in some areas they claim to see pebbles underneath the surface of the blue areas. Truly water resisting the temptation to evaporate off the face of Mars or merely an anomaly of stereophotography gone wrong? We'll have to wait and see as the "Face on Mars" has taught us not to trust your eyes when viewing the red planet."
The Courts

TorrentSpy Ordered By Judge to Become MPAA Spy 372

PC Guy writes "TorrentSpy, one of the world's largest BitTorrent sites, has been ordered by a federal judge to monitor its users. They are asked to keep detailed logs of their activities which must then be handed over to the MPAA. Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy's attorney responded to the news by stating: 'It is likely that TorrentSpy would turn off access to the U.S. before tracking its users. If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.'"

Slashdot Top Deals

Heisenberg may have slept here...

Working...