UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

My friend Baron must learn the sacred words:

"It depends"

There certain circumstances and even jurisdictions where you can be successfully sued and not really having told a lie, example - the false light doctrine.

Which is a quasi-defamation tort action.

They didn't claim false light...false light generally requires actual malice and is intended to harm someone emotionally rather than damage their reputation.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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. :-)

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

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. :-)

May I have an example?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by jfrog

May I have an example?

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"

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

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"

Would not paying your mortgage be a breach of contract and thus a public concern?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Would not paying your mortgage be a breach of contract and thus a public concern?

"It depends" - perhaps if your name were Barak Obama, but probably not if you were a non-public figure.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

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

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

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. :-)

Correct.