I don't know which posts were done pre- or post-lawsuit, but I don't that excuses the kind of posts I read about, or the kind of behaviors I read about. Even when you're sued, you have an obligation to stick to the truth.
There is a vast difference between yelling the truth loudly and yelling lies loudly. I have no problem with the former. I have a major problem with the latter.
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If they had stuck to the truth, no matter how loudly and frequently they had said it, they would not be in trouble.
What I've really tried to do here is purposefully stay away from the specifics of the Varian suit and look at the broader issues.
At some point, I think you have to look at the specifics. Unless you want to say that ANY posting on a message board should be protected, even if it is an outright lie and intentionally intended for the sole purpose of hurting somebody falsely, which I don't think you want to do, at some point you have to look at the actual postings made.
To use an extreme example, I'm sure I'd be appalled at some of the people let off because they weren't given
their Miranda rights, but I'd still be forced to defend the legal tenet.
I agree with you. But what legal tenet do you think is involved here?
Worse, as the jury was not allowed to read various message boards, let alone the one in question, we can't
even attach context to our discussion.
I've never heard of context used as a defense to defamation. So I wasn't surprised at the ruling. Defamation law, at least in my state, doesn't take context into account except in the sense of how to interpret the words. For example, does the phrase "you're a bastard" mean you're saying the person was literally born out of wedlock, or does it mean you think he's a wrong 'un? If it's in a medical record as oppose to a slanging match in a bar, I suppose the context would inform the meaning. But if the meaning is clear, I don't believe defamation law cares whether you say it in a bar or in a New Yorker article. |
