Comments on: Truth Is Not a Defense

By: AGuyInChicago

AGuyInChicago — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:06:09 +0000

Sorry “Another guy named Dan” per Jews for Jesus v. Rapp Florida no longer has a “false-light” cause of action for defamation. See http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rapp-v-jews-for-jesus.pdf

By: LasVegasSunCasinoHotel

LasVegasSunCasinoHotel — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:02:59 +0000

I share your opinion.

By: Another guy named Dan

Another guy named Dan — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:36:13 +0000

Florida has a “false-light” cause of action for defamation. For instance, if you printed that $Politician was accused of beating his ex-wife, without also including the fact that no charges were filed because he was in another city at the time of the alleged incident, you can be held liable, even if what you printed was technically true.

The standard, as I understand it is that the plaintiff has to show that the defendant knew, or should have known all of the facts, and acted maliciously in publishing the incomplete account.

By: joshv

joshv — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:52:44 +0000

“Truth is not always a defense.” ??? – Against a libel or defamation claim it certainly is.

By: MJ

MJ — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:27:28 +0000

Looks like “Easy” might be cited for contempt of cop. “Truth is not always a defense”. Give me a break. Only a lawyer could bend logic that far.

By: LakeHavasuSpringbreak

LakeHavasuSpringbreak — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:08:11 +0000

Totally agree with you!

By: Jens Fiederer

Jens Fiederer — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:56:15 +0000

OK, we’ll count that as your good deed for the day.

I’m a fan of free speech in general, but especially of TRUE free speech.