Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!motcid!weindlin
From: weindlin@motcid.UUCP (Mark L. Weindling)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The nature of libel
Message-ID: <5015@ash21.UUCP>
Date: 2 Nov 90 14:49:25 GMT
References: <1990Oct29.175540.23987@uncecs.edu> <1990Nov1.060754.639@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Nov1.175408.4690@uncecs.edu> <18668@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL
Lines: 26

Excuse me for interrupting, particularly with my rather complete lack
of legal knowledge, but I seem to recall from a number of
well-publicized legal battles that to convice someone of libel/slander
the plaintiff must PROVE (note the word PROVE, not imply or suggest)
two basic points:

	The statements of the defendant damaged the credibility or
	well-being of the plaintiff

AND

	The statements of the defendant were known to be untrue and
	WERE CALCULATED TO INJURE either the credibility or well-being
	of the plaintiff.

In short, from my recollection, I cannot be sued unless I
intentionally spread known untruths which injured the individual who
brought the suit.  I can say ANYTHING I wish, provided that my intent
is not to hurt.  Such lawsuits are rather difficult to win, if memory
serves.

Correct me if I am wrong...
-- 
-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Mark L. Weindling        | Motorola, Inc., United States Digital Cellular
..!uunet!motcid!weindlin |"Life is both too long and too short to spend
(708) 632-4369           | with any but the best." - R. Underhill