Um, is this legal?

[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.