They didn't claim false light...false light generally requires actual malice and is intended to harm someone emotionally rather than damage their reputation.
In THIS case they did not, in answering general questions it should be pointed out in some jurisdictions it is possible.
There is no doubt he had malice, and the point being it does not always require an overt lie to be successfully sued. :-)
In THIS case they did not, in answering general questions it should be pointed out in some jurisdictions it is possible.
There is no doubt he had malice, and the point being it does not always require an overt lie to be successfully sued. :-)
Was his intent to be done with malice or was the act just malicious no matter how you sliced it? It seems his intent was to justify his daughter marrying this man
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
I can not imagine my father feeling the need to do the same. In fact, I know he wouldn't because we know the pastor involved very well and we discussed this situation a few days ago. The pastor had no reason to be discussing this girl period. She wasn't his saint. The girl's pastor (which I know very well) stood behind her.
my biggest worry in all this was the impact this had on the ladies relationship with God.
If I am not reading too much in here, she is still going to church?
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Plenty of cases I could cite, but that would make for some mighty boring reading.
Here is an excerpt from an article:
Public disclosure of private facts occurs when a writer discloses private and embarrassing facts about a living person that are not of "public concern." First Amendment rights protect publication of items of legitimate pubic concern, such as the details of a crime. Ask yourself, is the story newsworthy? If so, the public's interest in knowing about the incident outweighs the privacy factor. If, however, the matter is not one of public concern, and is one that most people would find highly offensive, there is an invasion of privacy. For example, publicizing the fact that your brother-in-law has failed to pay his mortgage for three months, although true, would be an invasion of his privacy. Other examples would be details of a person's sexual problems, physical or mental ailments. Problems often arise when writing about a real-life event: in such cases, you should obtain written releases from the "ordinary people" who are only peripherally involved with the newsworthy event.
While this article addresses the new area of false light when publishing it still is a valid principle in some states. Which is why I am a great proponent of "it depends".
For example, the present case was made worse by the pastor's obvious personal interest, if there were an overwhelming need to state something publicly like warning parents of a known child molester it would probably be ok, because it would be lacking the malicious element. On the other hand'- "it depends"
how could she have a relationship with God, she wears bikinis <gasp!>
Linear Mode
