That the perpetrator of the original message in this thread was an imposter, the thread itself can
be seen at a defamatory attempt to injure reputation with malice. These conditions must apply for a
charge of defamation to be laid out.
What is defamation?
Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the
written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation.
You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely
supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable
defense if you have $50,000 for lawyers to defend it. If you don't feel like being on the frontier
of legal theory, you should build a somewhat better defense.
If the perpetrator impersonates his victom and makes a false posting that alludes to a false
representation on that person's character, such as the original message in this thread, the
perpetrator is breaking several laws, all of which are a clear cut attempt at defamation. Again:
"Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the
written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation."
In order to prove injury to a person's self or organization all it would take is for one person to
read the false accusation made, have forwarded that to the intended victim in response to declining
service, or perhaps costing a position.
Be safe and add on these concepts:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>Avoid the impression of malice.<<<<
State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This keeps things clear in your mind.
All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven,
malicious ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic"😉 statement about a private individual.
Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar.
In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy - getting drunk once does not prove
alcoholism - but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have
clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.
Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of
malice, about a public figure.