 xO                                                                 d be a PUBLIC SERVICE to give a Law Lesson on appropriate subjects. 
 
These lessons are NOT to be taken as legal advice nor are they to be applied to specific situatioLAW LESSONS 
 
From time to time events in the Adam world seem to indicate that it would be a PUBLIC SERVICE to give a Law Lesson on appropriate subjects. 
 
These lessons are NOT to be taken as legal advice nor are they to be applied to specific situations.  My intent is to give a very general broad over-view.  Indeed with the law differing in each US state and Canadian Province, it would be impossible to give very specific information or advice in such a column as this. 
 
This then is to be understood to be a very general and board over view of the law as it prevails in many jurisdictions but is not to be applied to your situation or your jurisdiction.  For information that specific you would do best to consult a local attorney. 
 
LESSON ONE:  SLANDER AND LIBEL 
 
[This particular less will rely heavily on Prof. Wm. Prosser's book the Law of Torts and its treatment of the subject of libel and slander]. 
 
DEFAMATION which is an invasion of reputatation and good name includes libel (which written communications) and slander (which is oral communications), although there can be an overlapping, especially with modern technology. 
 
Since defamation is a relational interest, that is it involves the opinion which others may have or tend to have of the plaintiff (party who is suing, party who was defamed), it therefore requires that it be communicated to some third party that may affect that opinion. 
 
Therefore while derogatory words or insults direct to the plaintiff may indeed cause him much distress, they are not defamation unless communicated to some third party. 
 
DEFAMATION is that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions towards him. 
 
There is an interesting problem when the defamatory words are directed at a group or class of persons rather than an individual.  The plaintiff must show that he is a member of the class defamed. 
 
An example would be saying all AUGS are guilty of piracy.  The plaintiff must then show it was an AUG or a member of an AUG as AUG's only function and exist by their membership. 
 
Then the plaintiff must establish some reasonable application of the words to himself. If the group is a very large one, as in the case of such words as, "all lawyers are shysters" they are considered to have NO application to anyone in particular, as the group is so large. But if there were only one lawyer present or by some other reason the words are understood by the hearers to be directed individually to him, the personal application can be made. 
 
This rule has been applied quite uniformly to comparatively large groups or classes of a definite number , exceeding, say 25 members to the group or class.  When the group becomes smaller than that as in the case of US AUGS or Texas Dealers or Florida AUGS the courts can be expected to permit the conclusion that the finger of defamation is pointed at EACH individual member of the group or class.  If it were said one of twenty groups were corrupt, perhaps none would be defamed but if it were said all but one or two of twelve (or less) are corrupt all would be defamed. 
 
In some cases you must show that the words did in fact injury you.  However, in certain situations, the mere accusation of a certain type is sufficent by itself.  One such type accusation would be imputation of a crime, such as piracy or price fixing. Statements defaming a person in his business, trade, profession, office or calling do not need special proof of damages and the mere use of them is taken to result in dafamation. 
 
Technical precision as to the particular crime is not required as "thief" is enough, as are "pimp" or "bootlegger".  Pirate would fit in this same classification. 
 
For publication or communication to a third party, the posting of a message in the public message section of a BBS would be sufficent, as would the mailing of catalogs to third parties. 
 
Each such mailing would in itself be a separate act of defamation as would be each separate reading of the message in the public BBS section.  If one mailed l,000 catalogs he could be sued for each and everyone of them as being an act of defamation. 
 
Further, depending upon where the catalogs were received or where the messages were read, the suit could be brought in one or all of the separate states and provinces where the catalogs were received or the public message read. 
 
Further as to whether or not the defendant (defamer) intended to defame the other party, it is NOT necessary that such was his intent. A less standard is require, he need have only been acting negligently and not intentionally.  IF he just failed to anticipate the defamatory result it would be sufficent or if he failed to take reasonable precautions against the defamatory result (such as not being more specific where the meaning could apply to several, such as all dealers in Texas or AUGS in Florida).
 

A retraction does not remove or relieve from liability although it may go towards mitigating the damages and may be given some consideration in setting the amount of the damages. 
 
This is an over view of this area of the law and is not to be taken as applying to any specific situation or events. 
 
This is meant as a public service as a matter of public information. 
 
Barry Wilson 
^B
 
 of the separate states and provinc
