Seriously was everyone asleep in ethics class, or perhaps I am a relic and they no longer consider ethics a core curriculum these days.
Defamation comes in two forms; slander and libel.
Slander is spoken orally.
Libel is printed, digital is included in "print" usage.
The passage that is in question is:
"There are already rumors of Dana cutting corners. The guy is reckless, a drunk and most likely a hard core drug user."
Since this is "printed", it can only be defined as libel. Breaking down the comment;
The guy is reckless - that is opinion, not libel.
A drunk - that is fact as we are all aware of the incident at the Mardi Gras Casino. If it said habitual or chronic that might be libel but the drunk part is not qualified, it stands as fact, not libel
And most likely a hard core drug user - this falls under the alleged category of opinion used by media when reporting a crime that has been adjudicated in court. This is not libel.
You might dislike his opinions and views but he did not do what you assert he has done.
What is it I asserted he did? Besides act like an asshole? You just wasted a bunch time typing for no reason. In your eagerness to share your opinion, you apparently didnt take the time to actually read the discussion - Greg Jacobs said it was slanderous, not me. So I'd direct your lectures at him.
Spreading unsubstantiated gossip, simply because you dont like someone is reckless. I think any decent person would agree.
The point - I dont need legal cover to keep me from speaking about others inappropriately. I already know its wrong.
Character assassination is wrong, it doesnt matter if it doesnt raise to slander - get it?
Last edited: