Lawyers: slander/libel?

[Anonymous]

If someone accuses someone (a public official) of something that is true but unprovable (for example, sexual harassment), does the accuser run the risk of being sued for libel or slander?

[Anonymous]

I mean, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But the standard for proving libel against a public official is very high -- the plaintiff has to prove that the statement was false, and that the writer/publisher/speaker acted with actual malice, knowing that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But the standard for proving libel against a public official is very high -- the plaintiff has to prove that the statement was false, and that the writer/publisher/speaker acted with actual malice, knowing that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Thanks that’s good to know.

[Anonymous]

But if you are planning to publicly accuse a public official of serious misconduct, you really ought to consult a lawyer beforehand if you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if you are planning to publicly accuse a public official of serious misconduct, you really ought to consult a lawyer beforehand if you can.

Yes, and I would reach out to Time's Up. I worked with them at my previous law firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But the standard for proving libel against a public official is very high -- the plaintiff has to prove that the statement was false, and that the writer/publisher/speaker acted with actual malice, knowing that the statement was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

I think that is the standard for the press. The standard for random individuals mouth not be as high.

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court, almost a half century ago, ruled in Gertz v Robert Welch that there basically is no such thing as strict liability for defamation, especially in a political speech context. Add that to the fact that proof of malice would be required for a public official as plaintiff to survive initial motions and, in effect, you can make statements concerning a public official as long as they are not false and as long as you are repeating what is factually reasonable and/or is very clearly opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if you are planning to publicly accuse a public official of serious misconduct, you really ought to consult a lawyer beforehand if you can.

Yes, and I would reach out to Time's Up. I worked with them at my previous law firm.

They are a great organization and can help you, even if you decide not to pursue (though I hope you do - I wish more people would speak up. Easier said than done, I know, but I now see so many who were accused coming back and saying, well maybe I wasn’t perfect but this is too much, to discredit their accusers and seek sympathy. (A la Matt Lauer.). These people need to be held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Justin Fairfax don’t run for governor! You are a rapist.

[Anonymous]

DC has an anti-SLAPP statute that makes it somewhat more difficult to sue someone for engaging in speech relevant to matters of public concern. But if you are in VA. Or MD, there is not an anti-slapp statute so someone can bring a baseless suit against you and make you defend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has an anti-SLAPP statute that makes it somewhat more difficult to sue someone for engaging in speech relevant to matters of public concern. But if you are in VA. Or MD, there is not an anti-slapp statute so someone can bring a baseless suit against you and make you defend it.

PP, that's completely false. Virginia has a not-bad Anti-SLAPP statute, and has for years. It's imperfect but not fatally flawed. The only way around it, in its context, is actual or constructive knowledge of, or extreme recklessness re, falsity. ANYTHING that would be protected by NYT v Sullivan is covered by the statute. There is a fee-shifting clause.

You need to double-check before you post complete BS information on which people might innocently rely.

The statute is at:

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/section8.01-223.2/

The text is:

A. A person shall be immune from civil liability for a violation of § 18.2-499, a claim of tortious interference with an existing contract or a business or contractual expectancy, or a claim of defamation based solely on statements (i) regarding matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution made by that person that are communicated to a third party or (ii) made at a public hearing before the governing body of any locality or other political subdivision, or the boards, commissions, agencies and authorities thereof, and other governing bodies of any local governmental entity concerning matters properly before such body. The immunity provided by this section shall not apply to any statements made with actual or constructive knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard for whether they are false.

B. Any person who has a suit against him dismissed or a witness subpoena or subpoena duces tecum quashed pursuant to the immunity provided by this section may be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has an anti-SLAPP statute that makes it somewhat more difficult to sue someone for engaging in speech relevant to matters of public concern. But if you are in VA. Or MD, there is not an anti-slapp statute so someone can bring a baseless suit against you and make you defend it.

Yup. I had to do that in Maryland against a doctor who sued me for a (truthful) Yelp review.