Um, is this legal?

[christiangirl]

In answer to your question, that's definitely not illegal...unless it's untrue. If it's true, then the First Amendment could protect the group creator's right to publish that information. If it's not, then it becomes slander which is a subcategory of defamation and is punishable by law. The guy could take it to trial and even sue for damages if he lost his job because of the accusation or something similar. However, he'd have to provide concrete evidence that he's innocent in order to make the charge stick. Even so, if the group creator says she really was raped and honestly thought it was him she could still get off on a technicality. He would have to somehow prove that she knew what she was saying was false.


That's what I gathered from here: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander/

[epchick]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

In answer to your question, that's definitely not illegal...unless it's untrue. If it's true, then the First Amendment could protect the group creator's right to publish that information. If it's not, then it becomes slander which is a subcategory of defamation and is punishable by law. The guy could take it to trial and even sue for damages if he lost his job because of the accusation or something similar. However, he'd have to provide concrete evidence that he's innocent in order to make the charge stick. Even so, if the group creator says she really was raped and honestly thought it was him she could still get off on a technicality. He would have to somehow prove that she knew what she was saying was false.


That's what I gathered from here: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander/

You've got the right idea, except in this case it isn't slander, its libel. Slander is oral defamation, while libel is written.

If this guy decided to take it to trial he would have to prove "actual malice." If I can remember my Law of Mass Comm class correctly, the guy would have to prove that the creator of the group created the group without proper knowledge and didn't regard the validity of the information.

So he would have to prove that the creator of the group KNEW the information was false, but that they didn't care.

Actual malice is reeeeeeally hard to prove a lot of the time, especially the fact about knowing whether the information was actually true.

[SHEETCAKE]

This looks like a job for INTERNET LAWYER!

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

He would have to somehow prove that she knew what she was saying was false.

Originally Posted by epchick

So he would have to prove that the creator of the group KNEW the information was false, but that they didn't care.

Isn't that half a dozen in one hand and 6 in the other?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Isn't that half a dozen in one hand and 6 in the other?

I never said that your information was wrong. I said that you confused libel w/ slander.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I guess you've never heard of a false light. Portraying him as a rapist casts him in a false light and can cause him injury. ....If it's made regarding a private person, there's no requirement for malice

ETA: I found my notes from my Law of Mass Comm class....so I changed my 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

[UGAalum94]

Unless maybe he knows he is guilty of rape or sexual assault and learned something from Oscar Wilde and Lillian Hellman about suing people for making "false" statements that are actually true.

Which seems pretty unlikely but you don't really want to invite someone to "prove it" when they can.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'm kinda hesitant to say that the group was intended as "personal hatred." The creator of the group could be under the impression that the information she/he gave is competely legitimate and true, and the group is just there to warn others. With this kind of "mentality" it would be harder to prove my 2nd point (about exhibiting negligence). Because if they did enough research, i.e. talking to people this guy might have come in contact with, they could say that they were completely justified in creating the group.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Many states award statutory damages (at least a set minimum figure) for libel per se, which this is.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

"Malice" for libel doesn't carry the same meaning as it does in criminal law. Malice is almost like a mens rea requirement that the libel be done with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. That doesn't really matter here though because this guy is not a public figure. To prove libel, he only has to show that the statement accused him of a crime. If she can't prove the truth of what she alleged, game over.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by epchick

You've got the right idea, except in this case it isn't slander, its libel. Slander is oral defamation, while libel is written.

If this guy decided to take it to trial he would have to prove "actual malice." If I can remember my Law of Mass Comm class correctly, the guy would have to prove that the creator of the group created the group without proper knowledge and didn't regard the validity of the information.

So he would have to prove that the creator of the group KNEW the information was false, but that they didn't care.

Actual malice is reeeeeeally hard to prove a lot of the time, especially the fact about knowing whether the information was actually true.

This is correct. In order to win a libel suit, the guy would have to prove that the person who created this group knew the information she was supplying was false and that she was intending to cause harm to him. First amendment protects her.

There are a ton of groups on Facebook similar to this one. They're not all claiming rape, but other atrocities.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

This is correct. In order to win a libel suit, the guy would have to prove that the person who created this group knew the information she was supplying was false and that she was intending to cause harm to him. First amendment protects her.

I guess you've never heard of a false light. Portraying him as a rapist casts him in a false light and can cause him injury.

Accusation of a serious crime is also libel per se. If it's made regarding a private person, there's no requirement for malice. The burden would be on the defendant to prove that what she said was true -- that this fellla is a rapist. Since the police declined to file charges, that's going to be a pretty tall order.

There are a ton of groups on Facebook similar to this one. They're not all claiming rape, but other atrocities.

And because something is on Facebook, it's not actionable? What is the point of saying this?