topics

Jordan's post takes an angle that I have not seen before. I suppose some topics may attract more suits, and since there is a larger volume of case law associated with those topics, the cases may be more easily resolved by appealing to precedent.

However, so far as I know the general requirements for proving libel are generally the same regardless of topic, and seem to vary very little from state to state. Caveat: I am not an attorney.

1. A defamatory statement must be made, likely to harm the image or reputation of an individual or business entity.

2. The statement must be untrue. Truth is an absolute defense against libel in the USA.

3. The statement must be seen by at least one person other than the plaintiff. The more widely distributed it is, the more damaging it may be.

4. The person making the statement must know that it is false, or should have realized that it was probably false but didn't bother to check, and thus acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Therefore, intent is an issue here. Was the statement made maliciously? This may be difficult to prove.

5. Some harm must be caused. This may also be difficult to prove, since merely hurting someone's feelings doesn't count. For instance, prosecution lawyers may show tax statements demonstrating that the income of the plaintiff was adversely affected by the libel.

I have wondered often whether a cryonics organization would be able to demonstrate that it sustained harm as a result of remarks on Cold Filter. However, the statute of limitations for bringing a libel suit runs out after only 1 to 3 years, depending which state hears the case.