Xref: utzoo news.admin:3175 misc.legal:5523 soc.women:12262
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!cadev4!ekwok
From: ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposed lawsuit
Message-ID: <2656@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 26 Jul 88 18:41:15 GMT
References: <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1241@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <1299@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <1110@gethen.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@mipos3.intel.com
Reply-To: ekwok@cadev4.UUCP (Edward C. Kwok)
Organization: Who's who in Anonymity, 1988
Lines: 21

In article <1110@gethen.UUCP> abostick@gethen.UUCP (Alan Bostick) writes:
>
>Really?  I was under the impression that there were certain
>circumstances where, EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION IS TRUE the dissemination of
>it constitutes libel or slander.  (e.g. "were you aware that
>Computerwhiz X is a conviced felon?)  There is some criterion involving
>malice.
>

No. Truth is a total defence for slander and libel. You are thinking 
about invasion of privacy torts. But your example won't cut it. The
public has a important interest to know about felony conviction.






---------------------------------------------------------------
Very few people I know heard of Smith v. Van Gorgham, do you?
---------------------------------------------------------------