Seems like the judge is allowing the countersuit to proceed on the one narrow statement that Winters had been “convicted” of domestic abuse for beating his girlfriend. In actuality, Newton Police Officer Nathan Winters had orders of protection entered and extended several times because he was beating his girlfriend. Winters has not been convicted of domestic abuse, so the statement could be considered defamatory, and that’s why it wasn’t immediately dismissed with the rest of the claims.
Sounds like you know what you’re talking about, and I don’t — doesn’t defamation have to be ‘intentional’? Sounds like, at worst, a misstatement that can be rewinded with a published correction.
Exactly. You have to knowingly or negligently provide false information for it to be defamation. A kid not knowing that a restraining order doesn’t equal a conviction should be neither.
They also have to prove that the statements caused actual damages.
If I’m reading this right, this is what the countersuit would have to prove. Basically, the grounds would be “Yeah, he did say something untrue, so now I’ll let you try to prove that he did so intentionally”
Seems like the judge is allowing the countersuit to proceed on the one narrow statement that Winters had been “convicted” of domestic abuse for beating his girlfriend. In actuality, Newton Police Officer Nathan Winters had orders of protection entered and extended several times because he was beating his girlfriend. Winters has not been convicted of domestic abuse, so the statement could be considered defamatory, and that’s why it wasn’t immediately dismissed with the rest of the claims.
Sounds like you know what you’re talking about, and I don’t — doesn’t defamation have to be ‘intentional’? Sounds like, at worst, a misstatement that can be rewinded with a published correction.
Exactly. You have to knowingly or negligently provide false information for it to be defamation. A kid not knowing that a restraining order doesn’t equal a conviction should be neither.
They also have to prove that the statements caused actual damages.
If I’m reading this right, this is what the countersuit would have to prove. Basically, the grounds would be “Yeah, he did say something untrue, so now I’ll let you try to prove that he did so intentionally”