Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!lognet2!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Sears
Message-ID: <330@styx.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 20:35:28 EST
Article-I.D.: styx.330
Posted: Mon Feb 10 20:35:28 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Feb-86 17:17:27 EST
References: <1273@osu-eddie.UUCP> <159@pedsgo.UUCP> <243@imagen.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA
Lines: 49
Summary: Trade libel, etc.

In article <243@imagen.UUCP> jay@imagen.UUCP writes:
> . . .
>      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.
> 
>      So:  question to all posters of negative (but VALUABLE, I think)
> consumer information on companies/products/services you have dealt with:
> Aren't you awfully worried that the wrong predatory lawyers are going to
> see your postings, and crucify you???  Another question:  Is there any
> fairness or honesty at all in the libel laws, if I read them right?

There are two sets of tort (civil wrong) laws involved here. The first
is defamation (specifically libel, which is written defamation).

Please note the following:

1. Truth is a complete defense to libel. Period.
2. The burden of proof as to the truth or falsity of the utterance is
   solely with the plaintiff.
3. It is extremely difficult for plaintiffs who are not natural persons
   (human individuals) to win libel judgments.
4. There are various other defenses to libel, including absolute and
   qualified privileges. In a consumer issues forum like net.consumers, 
   truthful information about the practices of various firms (or even 
   individual merchants), and even erroneous material, if not maliciously 
   posted, would likely be protected. Opinion of any kind would also
   be protected, whether or not identified as such, as long as it did
   not maliciously disguise itself as "fact".

The second set of laws deal with business torts, which go under
different names in different states, including "trade libel",
"interference with economic advantage", "interference with contract",
etc. These are designed to prevent malicious tampering with business
relationships. "Trade libel" usually refers to the false denigration
of the quality of another's goods, e.g., if widget-maker X says that
widget-maker Y's widgets are made from dead babies, or suchlike.
"Interference with contract" might come into play if a competitor
called a bunch of dealers and libelled their mutual distributor.

Anyway, my conclusion is that it's OK to name names here in
net.consumers; I'll continue to do so and hope others do as well.

Michael C. Berch
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA