True statements can be defamatory by implication

True statements can be defamatory by implication

The state high court ruled last week that plaintiffs can sue for defamation by implication under Iowa law, even if the statements are true.

March 12, 2007 · Private- and public-figure plaintiffs in Iowa can now sue for "defamation by implication" even if all if the statements in question are true, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court said that if a true fact is not properly or thoroughly explained, it can become defamatory if, read a certain way, it carries false implications.

In the opinion, the court was careful to emphasize that its ruling applied to public officials and public figures – groups that have traditionally enjoyed less protection under libel law.
However, the court also stressed that the case at hand might not constitute defamation by implication.

In 2002, the Ames Tribune refused to print a column by freelance sports columnist Todd Stevens. Shortly afterward, Stevens resigned and the newspaper ran his farewell column alongside an op-ed by sports editor Susan Harman that said Stevens rarely attended the events that were featured in his column. She also wrote that the newspaper had refused to publish the contested column because it "contained numerous factual errors and unsubstantiated claims."
Stevens sued Harman, Tribune editor Erik Brooks, and the newspaper's parent company, Iowa Newspapers Inc., for defamation.

Stevens alleged that although it was true that he rarely attended the events he covered, Harman's statement was defamatory because she failed to mention that Stevens' "personal attendance was not required by professional standards."

A trial court initially granted summary judgment for Harman, Brooks and the newspaper. But on appeal, both the intermediate court and the Supreme Court held that although Harman's statements about Brooks "were all basically true," they possibly became libelous "when the statements are given the spin that Stevens attributes to them."

Consequently, the court "expressly adopt[ed] the principle of defamation by implication."
The court insisted, however, that the defamation alleged by Stevens did not necessarily constitute defamation by implication.

The case was sent back to the lower court for consideration under the defamation by implication standard.

(Stevens v. Iowa Newspapers, Inc., Media Counsel: Michael C. Cox, Koley Jessen, Omaha, Nebraska) -- ES

Lible, Slander, Whats the Difference, Posted By Robert Paisola ReputationMD.COM

Concerning a reaction against an online copyright violation, we discuss the expressions Libel! Slander! Defamation! Libel is an action for causing hurt or damage to someones reputation. Just like assault is an action for physical harm or damage. There are two forms of the Libelous action If the action is in writing, it is called "defamation": If the action is spoken, then it is "slander". But it is all "libel". The truth is not always a defence in a libel action. The court can find against you even if you tell the truth if the damage can be proved and you the libeler cannot mount an adequate defence. This does vary a lot from country to country. The USA has laws that allow you to say quite a lot before a court would find against you. You would have a number of defenses against a libel (Defamation, we will treat your email as the written word) in this case. (BTW the moderator would end up in court with you for "publishing" your "defamation"). The first would be "truth" good in the USA, not so good in Canada. "Qualified priviledge" (a) Performance of a duty (to your fellow list members) (b) Protection of an interest (statments made in self defence)(c) Common Interest (your fellow list members needed to be warned) (d) Public Interest (Very good in the USA not so good elswhere).(e) News "There is no stopping the publication of accurate news"-*Flemming the Law of Torts.544 para 4) (Whew goes the moderator) All in all, an action probably would not succeed, it might only waste time and money. The man's retort to your complaint would go very much against him. If I were on the jury, you would have my vote. Do not get carried away. What ever you say or write must not be any "improper motive" it must not be "malicious". The issue has been exposed. You have an action in copyright. You have said what needed to be said. You must now take that action or drop the issue (or at least the company and individual names.(unless you are responding or there is a further or continuing theft). Sorry for the length, but it seems an issue with a lot of interest. A counter action for breach of copyright should seal the matter. If you win, the man is a thief! This time the court says he is a thief. He cannot sue the court for defamation (or slander for that matter).

State Representative Vicki Truitt Introduces Blogger Libel Bill

State Representative Vicki Truitt Introduces Blogger Libel Bill

AUSTIN — State Representative Vicki Truitt has introduced a bill for the next legislature that would subject bloggers to the same libel laws as major media outlets.

Michael Davis at Dallas Progress has more details, along with a roundup of blogger reaction.

Text of the bill
80R555 CAE-D

By: Truitt H.B. No. 129

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT relating to defamatory statements posted on Internet websites.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 73, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 73.0045 to read as follows:

Sec. 73.0045. LIABILITY OF AUTHOR OF WEBSITE POSTING. (a)
The author of a defamatory statement expressed on an Internet website is subject to a libel suit in the same manner as if the author had published the defamatory statement in any other written or graphic form.

(b) A party that prevails in a libel suit against the author of a defamatory statement on an Internet website is entitled to an order by the court requiring the author to:
(1) remove the posting from the Internet website; or
(2) request the Internet website to remove the defamatory statement.

SECTION 2. This Act applies only to a libel suit commenced on or after the effective date of this Act. A libel suit that commenced before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law applicable to the libel suit immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

__________

For more information on Removal of Lible on the Internet see www.ReputationMD.com