Bill, sorry to see that you're in this mess.
I am not an attorney, and please do not accept this as iron-clad legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for a true legal opinion on this matter. Nothing in this post should be taken by any interested or other party as indication of my personal feelings on this matter, other than I see it as a regrettable episode for all sides.
Even though I am not an attorney, I do have some understanding the First Amendment, and when a person can and cannot claim to be libeled.
If you can demonstrate that this person is a public person (and not a private person), then it is much more difficult for them to make a case against you and the others.
A public person is one who has volunteered himself or herself into the public eye. It is arguable that this person does not meet that test in the normal performance of duty (in terms of analysis and commentary), since the firm's research is intended for private use. However, if this person has appeared on TV talk shows discussing the company or the industry that he/she covers, then he/she has volunteered himself/herself into the public domain. The same would go for being quoted in magazines.
Public figures find it much more difficult to prove that they have been libeled, defamed, or slandered, because (the thinking is) they've opened themselves up to criticism to a degree. Just how much they can be criticized is probably relative to just how much of a public authority they've made of themself. HOWEVER, if this person is low-key, you'll have much more trouble making your case that they are a public figure. YET, if, for instance, this person is constantly quoted in magazines, and/or interviewed on TV, then it will be difficult for them to prove that they are not a public figure in regards to their participation in public discourse.
Keep in mind that the alleged libel must be related to their public exposure (assuming there is any outside of the firm's private research) in order for you to be able to freely criticize under the First Amendment. In other words, you are entitled to criticize their opinions that are directly related to their public exposure, but not personal (non-public) matters.
I will watch this case with interest, as I am sure that it will set a powerful precedent for the future on the Internet. In the meantime, I shall watch what I say in my own posting.
Regards & Good Luck,
LoF |
