Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Sears
Message-ID: <15@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 20:18:43 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.15
Posted: Sun Feb  9 20:18:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Feb-86 08:27:06 EST
References: <895@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1273@osu-eddie.UUCP> <159@pedsgo.UUCP> <243@imagen.UUCP>
Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 46

In article <243@imagen.UUCP> jay@imagen.UUCP (Jay Jaeckel) writes:
>>
>> It really is interesting to see how different Sears stores vary in quality.
>> I have no negative or positive experiences to post about Sears, but after
>> reading the n-th posting about Sears, I wondered if Sears has access to
>> this net.  A small naive voice inside my head keeps saying "If only Sears
>> could see this, they would want to *DO* something!"  Are there any loyal
>> net.consumers readers in Chicagoland that know where to forward copies of
>> the past postings, and that have access to those posting?
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: This is my optimism speaking, not me!
>
>A small naive voice inside my head keeps saying "If only Sears could see
>this, the SURE MIGHT DO something:  They'd sue the ass off of everyone
>who posted dirt on them!"
>     I went to the library a few weeks ago and read a little bit on libel
>laws (having had a previous employer whom I have occasionally considered
>blowing the whistle on).  Turn out, apparently, that disclosing dirt about
>someone can get you into deep shit, and that the truth of your dirt (even
>if you can PROVE it, which you often can't) is at best usually a weak
>defense which MIGHT get the court to reduce the damages awarded against you.
>                 . . . .
>                                        -- Jay Jaeckel
>                                        ...{ucbvax,decwrl}!imagen!jay

I believe that you are correct about libel law AS IT APPLIES TO PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS.  It is an awful lot harder to libel someone who qualifies
as a ``public figure'' (and much of the legal battle in large libel
cases goes into proving or disproving this distinction).  How do you
think the National Enquirer gets away with ``Liz Had Qaddafi's Baby''
headlines?

Now, someone with more legal background than me should certainly confirm
or deny this, but I believe that Sears would be considered along the same
lines as a public fugure, for purposes of determining libel.  And in the
case of libeling a public figure not only is truth a defense, but actual
malice has to be proven.

As for blowing the whistle your former employer--see a lawyer.  Find
out just what standard of libel applies here.

                -Ed Hall
                decvax!randvax!edhall

P.S. Consider just how long a magazine like Consumer Reports would
last if such a strict interpretation of libel were applied to industry!