- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 31,027
- Reaction score
- 15,587
The reason that the NYTimes changed things is that a media organ was involved. The distinction I made was between something written or disseminated by a media organ with certain constitutional protections not given to an individual such as Pioli. He is held to different standards as an individual.
And I do agree with you that damages are more difficult to prove in a case of slander (as I wrote in the post above) but the actual case against the slanderer is easier. Both elements have to be there of course, and it's clear that the slander has to pertain to your professional reputation (i.e. you can call someone anything you like as long as you don't make claims against their career performance or accuse them of having committed a crime). Then it ventures into slander. Then the burden of proof shifts to the accuser, with the final element being that you, the accused, have to PROVE pecuniary damage.
Of course, as has been stated elsewhere on this board, the truth is an absolute defense to all defamation suits (in other words, if Pioli can demonstrate that what he says is true, Walsh would be SOL in a libel case, in addition to the likelihood that he is just a POS on general principle).