Can you be sued for libel/slander for blog entries?
138544
Yes you can (and it would be for libel, which is printed, as compared to slander, which is spoken). It does not matter if the piece is represented as fact or opinion and it does not have to have a financial effect on the person you are talking about. It only has to damage their character and reputation and be done in a public forum (which a blog would qualify as).\n\nThere are different rules for public officials and personalities as compared to regular people.\n\nBut yes, you can be sued for what you put in a blog, just like a newspaper, magazine or radio or television station ... you are putting out information into a public forum. And be careful, because even being found not guilty of charges will cost you lots and lots of money, so don't say anything that could even lead to a suit being filed ... it's why most media outlets spend big bucks on libel insurance and lots of lawyers.
140454
Don't know if you could sue, but you sure could report them to the appropriate agencies or Attorney General of your state.  Check the "whistleblower's laws" in your state also to see what protections are offered to you.
1102693
Technically, you can be sued for anything, valid or not.  Legally, I think there's not a jury in the land that would hold you accountable.
760903
Get a lawyer to write him a letter--it should only cost $100-200.  Issues to consider -- violating your right to privacy, right to publicity, and defamation.  Demand that the website be taken down.\nAlso consider contacting his Internet Service Provider.  They have obligations to take down illegal material (well, at least they do in the U.S.-- UK libel law is actually stricter than U.S. libel law, so U.K. ISPs may be even more willing to censor their subscribers' speech).  Contact Google to report the violation of your rights to ensure that a cached version is not stored by Google.\n\nIf you're going to write him an e-mail first, I would suggest being polite but firm.  State that you've never authorized this mini-biography, nor the pictures being taken in a private pub.  State that the false statements are libelous and caused harm to your reputation, and that the other statements and pictures violate your privacy.  State that in the interest of fairness and decency, you demand that he take down the website and destroy any electronic copies of your pictures, and that you request confirmation of such in 5 days, otherwise further legal action may be taken.\n\nIt works best if you have a lawyer draft this letter.  It shows that you're serious , and will be artfully drafted to scare the bejeezsus out of him. Plus, you can handle it and don't have to be stressed.
131552
Libel: \nA false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. \nSlander:\nLaw. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. \nTherefore, it would be slander.
563308
If it is a distorted or false information that is intentionally put out to negatively effect someone's reputation, you are liable for...\n\nIn English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), the tort or delict of publishing (to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation.\n\n"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander". Libel is defamation that can be seen, such as in writing, printing, effigy, a movie, or a statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
969145
Defamation requires the publication of untrue (false) statements of fact about a person which harms that person's reputation. Defamation includes both libel (written) and slandar (spoken).\n\nA person can be sued if they publish (make public) false statements, which causes the target person harm. If the target person is a public official or celebrity, there also needs to be proof that the person making the statement knew it was (or likely was) false when it was made. In private defamation actions, that additional knowledge element is not required.\n\nOther than that, details of elements and how the complaint would be structured vary by state. Check your local listings.
184379
In what way is the company harassing you?  They spoke to you in a meeting about an employee feeling threatened by comments that you made on your blog.\n\nFor information about what is protected speech and what is not, review the EFF page on blogger's rights.  For example, the EFF states political opinion, unionization, workplace conditions, whistleblowing are protected.  \n\nThe Electronic Frontier Foundation Blogger's FAQs: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/\n\nThe FAQ on Labor Law: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-labor.php\n\nReview those faqs; if you still think you have a case against the company, bring it to a lawyer experienced in Labor Law.
981644
Might be worth asking the CAB (citizens advice bureau) can fix you up with a legal-aid solicitor on one of the £5 for 20 minute style things they use to do.\n\nIf you cannot find someone to do this, then call a few solicitors, MOST will give you a free initial consultation to decided if there is anything thay can help you with - it is then up to yopu if you decided to proceed with them or not.\n\nIGNORE anyone who say "yes" or "lots of problems" - unless they can specifically quote WHAT law you are breaking - and also if it is a UK law.\n\nThere is a defence against libel and defamation IF it is in the public's interest. I would suggest that alerting people to unethical and underhand practice could be construed as being in the public interest. However I am not a solicitor or barrister - so would suggest you speak to one.\n\nFurthermore, in the UK, we do not tend to toss people into jail with quite as much enthusiasm as they do in other countries - and if you have little money to lose (no house etc) then you would not really be worth suing. So what they can REALLY do against you is probably fairly minimal.\n\nIt is intersting to note that presumably the domain name issuers has not chosen to take the domain away from you and award it to this niblo character. Something I would ave thought his legal folks would have done rather than waste their time.\n\nGet your site regsitered with google (search for "search engine submission") then even if you lose the site in the end, it will remain cached on search engines for a long time to come.\n\nAnd if you lose he website? then "allan_niblo_is_dishonest.com" or "allan_diblo_leaves_bad_debt.com" might be available. Just keep it true and keep the information in the public interest.
918217
Yes you are on the right track and the correct term is non-disclosure. It is a very law embedded field and can be twisted and turned at every post. Such as matters of opinion can be withheld from you and other similar documents. The best way is really to have a legal representative who will not be railroaded by the other side. A solicitor will try and eat you up with legal jargon that will make your head spin.
222462
Not sure about this question, but I'd be very careful posting slanderous material on the internet if I were you. Companies take this sort of thing very seriously and before you know it, you can find yourself in legal hot water.
797753
true\n\nI want to sue this guy\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0
455954
I beleive you can as long as there is nothing within it that could constitute slander or libel or be classified as an inflammatory comment.
246488
It depends. In order to determine whether something is libelous, a decision has to be made if the statement is (1) factually true; (2) an opinion protected under free speech, whether true or not; (3) factually untrue, but not malicious; or (4) factually untrue and intended to harm someone's reputation. The first three instances are not libelous, but the fourth example is. Judges have an obligation to obey the law, and if they sign orders recklessly with an intent to cause harm, some action may be taken against them under limited conditions. Judges lose their immunity from being sued under two conditions: (1) when they knowingly act without jurisdiction and (2) when they assume the role of a prosecutor. As it appears from the question that no hearing was held here, but the person was prosecuted without cause, I think that judicial immunity might fail here--if not for libel, but for an action based on a breach of Civil Rights. Filing an appeal doesn't resolve the underlying libel in the order, which was the point of the question; all an appeal does is force the victim to waste money having the libelous statements removed, while not curing the defamation.
1099494
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.\n\nThis is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.\n\nIn the United States, about 75 percent of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25 percent in federal courts. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.\n\nMost defendants in libel lawsuits are newspapers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.\n\nIn the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. In addition, it is generally accepted in the United States that a sufficiently public figure is "fair game" for all but the grossest libels.\n\nDefences to claims of defamation include:\n\n    * Truth is an absolute defence in the United States because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In some other countries, such as Canada, it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.\n    * Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.\n    * Privilege is a defence when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.\n    * Opinion is a defence is recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the person makes a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and allow any statements suggesting a factual basis to support a defamation claim.\n    * Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.\n    * Consent is an
160490
She would have grounds to sue you on the grounds of defamation if you follow through.  Instead, take her to small claims court.
879009
Neither of these statments is even close to being true.  If someone spoke the line you said and another changed it, the term for what the second person did would be "misquoting".  The term for what the first did would most likely be "libel".