Defences to claims of defamation include: - *Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true * are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources. - *Opinion * is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable . However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander#cite_note-27> - *Fair comment on a matter of public interest *, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound ; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected. - *Consent * is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement. - *Innocent disseminatio<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination> * is a defense available when a defendan had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence . Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter. - Claimant is *incapable of further defamation*–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. - Statute of limitations . Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or the Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the plaintiff first learns of the communication.[29]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander#cite_note-28> - *No Third-party communication*: If an employer were to bring an employee into a sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee would have no defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and would-be defendant heard the false statement. - *No actual injury*: If there *is* third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury, and therefore, no recourse.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is *prima facie <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie>* not libelous. Also, the *public figure* doctrine, also called the absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones Beene > from any possible legal harm? > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jones Beene wrote: >> >> So Defkalion, it can be argued - could have improved on the basic "pump >>> and >>> dump" scam in many ways, but there may be no proof of that until it is >>> too >>> late . . . >>> >> >> It can be argued in what sense? Are you or are you not accusing people of >> criminal activities? Do you have any evidence for this? Is there some kind >> of connection between the GWE (Genesis World Energy) group and Defkalion? >> >> Perhaps this entire discussion is hypothetical, and you are only saying >> that it is possible this is a scam. Or that there have been scams in the >> past that resembled this. It that is what you mean -- and you are NOT >> actually accusing anyone of anything -- please say so. >> >> You seem to have no grasp how much trouble you might cause by publishing >> inflammatory false rumors about people. Libel will get them in trouble, and >> you in trouble, and possibly this entire forum in trouble. >> >> Of course if you have information, that is another matter entirely. In >> that case you have a civic duty to contact authorities. >> >> It is one thing to accuse Rossi, Levi, E&K of being incompetent as you >> have so often done. This is a science discussion forum, and you have every >> right to make such assertions. They can cause no harm to anything other than >> your reputation. Even if you are right, it is not against the law for >> scientists to make stupid mistakes. If it were, all scientists would be in >> jail. It is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER for you to accuse people of >> conspiring to commit seriously unlawful acts involving huge sums of money. >> >> This is a serious matter. Think it over before responding. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
