Um, is this legal?

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Yep.

[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 UGAalum94

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

She's not going to be able to prove the truth of this thing. If she complained to a prosecutor, they apparently didn't even have enough to indict the guy. If that didn't happen, I really doubt that there's any actual proof out there. Her word isn't good enough. It is her burden to prove that what she accuses this guy of is true.

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

Ah, did not know this - thanks.

Originally Posted by Kevin

"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.

Yeah, honestly I was just replying to her assertion more than the actual requirements of the crime - and, to nerd up the thread a little more, my point was that it would be insanely easy to insert the notion of "malice" (whether through legal or common definition) into the mind of the jury, which would in turn drive damages through correlative anger, so I was really thinking as the jury guy. If the money is there, this seems like a no-brainer case to take.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

She's not going to be able to prove the truth of this thing. If she complained to a prosecutor, they apparently didn't even have enough to indict the guy. If that didn't happen, I really doubt that there's any actual proof out there. Her word isn't good enough. It is her burden to prove that what she accuses this guy of is true.

Don't you have different standards for proof in civil cases though?

ETA: I realize this seems particularly dumb in the context of your legal back and forth, but what I mean is: Isn't it conceivable that a prosecutor could decline to try to indict knowing he/she had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and yet, this guy would be unable to prove libel because he was unable to prove that her claims were false and damaging.

What would the legal standard for proof be? Just a willingness of the jury to believe her over him or what?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Don't you have different standards for proof in civil cases though?

ETA: I realize this seems particularly dumb in the context of your legal back and forth, but what I mean is: Isn't it conceivable that a prosecutor could decline to try to indict knowing he/she had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and yet, this guy would be unable to prove libel because he was unable to prove that her claims were false and damaging.

What would the legal standard for proof be? Just a willingness of the jury to believe her over him or what?

Possibly. I would think that a prosecutor, in this case, however, might still indict (which isn't hard to do if there's at lest some evidence) so that they can try to get some sort of a plea bargain with the alleged rapist so that there might be some sort of penalty. That's what I'd do in a case like this.

Even if it was probation or some slap on the wrist, this would be something on his record.

Maybe you're right though.

I'm really not 100% sure what the burden of proof is here. I *think* it's preponderance of the evidence (i.e., if the jury 51% believes she is telling the truth, she wins). It could very well be a greater burden though. I'd have to look at a book that's in the other room right now.. and I'm just not going to do that

[Senusret I]

Yes. Damn me straight to heck.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm really not 100% sure what the burden of proof is here.

So let's say he didn't have a libel/false light case. Couldn't he still have a case of appropriation? Since the creator of the group used his name & his picture without his permission?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by epchick

So let's say he didn't have a libel/false light case. Couldn't he still have a case of appropriation? Since the creator of the group used his name & his picture without his permission?

Maybe, but the appropriation tort is more to compensate the plaintiff for the value of his appropriated likeness, i.e., Ford used an actor who sang like Bette Midler in one of their commercials, Bette Midler sued and was compensated for the value of her voice. Vanna White was portrayed by a robot in one of Samsung's ads. She was portrayed for the use of her likeness (I guess in the unique way she flips letters around?). A private plaintiff might use the appropriation tort to bootstrap a claim for emotional harm I suppose. So that might be something worth throwing in as a cause of action.