GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > Chit Chat
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Chit Chat The Chit Chat forum is for discussions that do not fit into the forum topics listed below.

» GC Stats
Members: 329,748
Threads: 115,668
Posts: 2,205,154
Welcome to our newest member, Alberttus
» Online Users: 3,861
1 members and 3,860 guests
amIblue?
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13  
Old 08-19-2008, 06:52 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by epchick View Post
In a false light case, they still would have to prove malice. For false light, the information need to not defamatory, only embarrasing and they have to be able to prove 2 things. 1. That the false information was highly offensive to a reasonable person and 2. that the publisher (in this case the creator of the group) was at fault exhibiting either malice or negligence. Because of a ruling in 1967, this guy would have to be required to prove fault in any false light case.
Of course he would - but this isn't the same difficult burden that is required when the 'defamed' is a company or a celebrity, and especially in civil court, it is not much of a reach to think that we could convince a jury that it is 50.1% likely that the person who started the group knew or should have known that others would be angry at the person, that others may want to harm or otherwise mistreat the person, that the person's life would be affected through jobs/web searches/etc., and that the individual targeted would be worse off as a result.

Starting the group, which required effort, satisfies any real or perceived "willful conduct" definition embedded in malice, and it appears that this person knew or should have known that the target would be injured, satisfying any common definition of malice. Further, it's clear the intent was a sort of "vigilante" action, aka "reckless of the law and of the legal rights" of the target, and that there is personal hatred or ill will - under the definition provided in my copy of Black's, it looks like malice isn't a ridiculous proposition here. She may try to argue just cause, but since the authorities in charge of just that sort of determination shied away, she might be up shit creek.

It's just a matter of whether the guy wants to drag the issue into court, since likely the entire episode would enter evidence. Additionally, while there is probably an actual injury, it's not likely he'd recover much unless somehow he missed out on a million-dollar contract as a result. It's probably not worth it, except to remove the actual Facebook group and try to move on.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is This Legal? Phi_Mu_Belle Greek Life 67 03-15-2007 09:42 PM
3 Legal Documents that you should not go without CrimsonTide4 Delta Sigma Theta 10 03-26-2005 01:30 PM
Need legal advice!!! swissmiss04 Chit Chat 5 05-27-2003 01:58 PM
I need legal advice UDZETA Chit Chat 1 04-11-2003 08:30 PM
I Am Legal!!!! nucutiepie Chit Chat 12 11-12-2001 01:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.