Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

This, and the fact that the truth can not be libelous. As long as you're not misrepresenting a claim, you're fine.


sort by: page size:

Truth is always an absolute defense to libel. If you can back up what you’re saying, libel isn’t a concern.

And if you can't prove what you're saying is true, then why are you saying it?


Not only that but someone can sue you even if something isn’t libelous. They just have to believe it is

Truth is an affirmative defense against a libel claim.

The truth is supposed to be a perfect defense against charges of slander or libel.

There isn't any defamation when the thing being said is a fact.

Truth is a defense to libel.

Being 100% factually accurate in your statements is an airtight defense against libel in the USA.

It's not libel if you can prove it's true.

Truth is an affirmative defense to libel.

Truth can not be libel.

In the US, publishing true information generally cannot be defamation.

I believe the point OP is making is that you can be accused of libel for speaking the truth.

Truth is always a defence to allegations of defamation.

It is not defamatory because it's provably true. Defamation must be false.

I'm not seeing anything potentially libelous in this proposal (assuming that the OP claims are not purely made up), as truth can't be libel.

It’s not defamation if it’s true

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

Truth is an absolute defence for libel.

It's not libel if it's true, and they'd only need to prove that to civil standard.
next

Legal | privacy