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”
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”