Posted by Susan J on August 22, 2003, at 9:13:18
In reply to Lou's response to Susan J's post » Susan J, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2003, at 9:00:59
Hi, Lou,
> Susan J,
> You wrote,[...thes are not defamation...]
> Well, they may not be actionable as defamation in a suit for such, let's say in the US.
> But I was trying to tell of a different type of defamation than that. It is the drfamation of the soul.
.......> Whether xyz makes a statement that is considered by the law to be defamation is not my concern here. My concern is that this is a mental helth website and that the ones that I mentioned , {it is I}, not the Supreme court that considers it defamation.
> You write that you are an attorny. You may be trained in the law. But are we to be discussants here based on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?
> Lou<<<That's a totally legitimate way of looking at it. My apologies. I took from the tone of your first two posts in this thread -- short intro to defamation, and defamation per quod -- to mean you were giving legal definitions of defamation, which is why I felt compelled to correct it.
Just for your reference, some quotes from your post that I construed to be legal in nature:
>There are more types of defamation than just the classic type of defamation called [per se] defamation. Defamation [per se] has the defamation clearly visible and is already been determined to be defamatory on its face, like the following:
Such and such is a child-molester
Such and such is a convicted felon.>Another form of statements that constitute defamation is the type of statement that is not visible on its face, but harms another anyway, and requiers evidence to show the harm. This is called [per quod] defamation.
Cheers,Susan
poster:Susan J
thread:252280
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/253052.html