Publicantion of Private Facts.

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
While I agree that one can be sued for libel and slander... which are both lies or falsehoods of fact about a person that cause real damage, publication of a true fact should be protected by the First Amendment.

Constitutionally, I should be allowed to say anything that is true about anyone I want. I would be shocked to find that publication of a true fact about a person is an actionable offence, unless you are dealing with protected information as do Doctors or Lawyers.

If your AIDS Doctor tells people you have AIDS, that is actionable, because he was trusted with protected information.

If Jimmy's mother tells Ronald that Jimmy has AIDS, and then Ronald publishes that information... and Jimmy really has AIDS, I don't think that should be actionable.


You should still be careful about what you say, and especially follow the rules of the website, but I wanted to clarify my view of these points.

* This is not legal advice, it is my political opinion as to what the law SHOULD be, not what it is.
 
Last edited:
I am sure these laws exist, but I would be shocked if any suits brought under them would survive a Supreme Court challenge.
 
Allow me to respectfully disagree. While I appreciate Soc's post yesterday and this, disclosure of one's AIDS status, true or not, has been proven - thanks to the horrible social stigma that results from it - in a real world setting and has been successfully prosecuted d in courts throughput the country. The internet is a different story, but things are rapidly changing. More soon....
 
Howey said:
Allow me to respectfully disagree. While I appreciate Soc's post yesterday and this, disclosure of one's AIDS status, true or not, has been proven - thanks to the horrible social stigma that results from it - in a real world setting and has been successfully prosecuted d in courts throughput the country. The internet is a different story, but things are rapidly changing. More soon....
Click to expand...

Disagree with what?
 
Jarod said:
Disagree with what?
Click to expand...

Since Howey believes that he can intimidate people into silence by threatening litigation, I wonder if he might reflect on the fact that he has accused people of paedophilia surely that is grounds to sue as well. Maybe Soc could enlighten as regards that situation?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Since Howey believes that he can intimidate people into silence by threatening litigation, I wonder if he might reflect on the fact that he has accused people of paedophilia surely that is grounds to sue as well. Maybe Soc could enlighten as regards that situation?
Click to expand...
Accusations of paedophilia if untrue would be libel or slander, if true a paedophile is probably on a public sex offenders list so not actionable.
 
Jarod said:
Disagree with what?
Click to expand...

This:

If Jimmy's mother tells Ronald that Jimmy has AIDS, and then Ronald publishes that information... and Jimmy really has AIDS, I don't think that should be actionable.
Click to expand...

and I explained why...

It is illegal under federal and state laws to disclose HIV status to a disinterested third party. If a hospital erroneously disclose a patient's HIV status to, say a vendor, the hospital could and will be sued for their actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHA regulations, the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Act, HIPAA, and COBRA.

As an attorney, you should be aware of this:

http://www.ada.gov/aids/ada_q&a_aids.htm

Yes. An individual has a “disability” under the ADA if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, including major bodily functions such as the functions of the immune system; has a record of such an impairment; or has an actual or perceived mental or physical impairment that is not transitory and minor and is subjected to an action prohibited under the ADA. Persons with HIV, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities or major bodily functions and are, therefore, protected by the law.

Persons who are discriminated against because they are regarded as having HIV are also protected. For example, a person who was fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even if he did not, would be protected by the law.

Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual who has HIV. For example, the ADA would protect a woman (who does not have HIV) who was denied a job because her roommate had AIDS.
Click to expand...

This has always been my complaint with this forum allowing USF and others to spread lies about my HIV status. As Socrates stated, the person stating the claim can (and in the case of USF, WILL BE) prosecuted for the words.

A forum owner, Damo, can merely be asked to remove the offending posts and ensure it doesn't happen again. Which is what I always wanted. Unfortunately, he never did that when asked by the forum host. I'm hoping that was out of ignorance of the law. We'll see.
 
Socrtease said:
Accusations of paedophilia if untrue would be libel or slander, if true a paedophile is probably on a public sex offenders list so not actionable.
Click to expand...

Well let's see now, Howey, Poet, Darla and Rune have all made accusations of paedophilia on here, so they have made themselves liable to prosecution, is that right?
 
Jarod said:
While I agree that one can be sued for libel and slander... which are both lies or falsehoods of fact about a person that cause real damage, publication of a true fact should be protected by the First Amendment.

Constitutionally, I should be allowed to say anything that is true about anyone I want. I would be shocked to find that publication of a true fact about a person is an actionable offence, unless you are dealing with protected information as do Doctors or Lawyers.

If your AIDS Doctor tells people you have AIDS, that is actionable, because he was trusted with protected information.

If Jimmy's mother tells Ronald that Jimmy has AIDS, and then Ronald publishes that information... and Jimmy really has AIDS, I don't think that should be actionable.


You should still be careful about what you say, and especially follow the rules of the website, but I wanted to clarify my view of these points.

* This is not legal advice, it is my political opinion as to what the law SHOULD be, not what it is.
Click to expand...

To be actionable under the doctrine of publication of private facts, it comes down to motive.

There are several tests a plaintiff must pass: was it a public disclosure of private facts no generally known; then the reasonable test: would the facts be offensive to a reasonable person. Example: Gary published the fact that Bob paid cash for a new car would not be damaging (maybe if Bob was in bankruptcy, but then the disclosure is covered because it was a crime), and would a reasonable person think it was offensive; and is the publication of private facts a legitimate public concern.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Well let's see now, Howey, Poet, Darla and Rune have all made accusations of paedophilia on here, so they have made themselves liable to prosecution, is that right?
Click to expand...

To a lawsuit. First you would have to show damage though. How many people who know you really think that because any of them said this here?

The reality is one would have to show damages to be able to successfully sue somebody for something like that. You are relatively anonymous because of the reality that the chances of somebody from your home town seeing a post on this site are pretty much nil, they'd then have to figure out who you are, then they'd have to fire you or something, tell your boss, etc. because they'd actually believe that the "accusation" were true...

At that point you'd have an actionable cause.
 
Damocles said:
To a lawsuit. First you would have to show damage though. How many people who know you really think that because any of them said this here?

The reality is one would have to show damages to be able to successfully sue somebody for something like that. You are relatively anonymous because of the reality that the chances of somebody from your home town seeing a post on this site are pretty much nil, they'd then have to figure out who you are, then they'd have to fire you or something, tell your boss, etc. because they'd actually believe that the "accusation" were true...

At that point you'd have an actionable cause.
Click to expand...

So what is the difference between that and Howey's attempts to cow people into submission? Very few know his surname on here, I do because the twerp sent me unsolicited emails attempting to dig up dirt on Yurt.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So what is the difference between that and Howey's attempts to cow people into submission? Very few know his surname on here, I do because the twerp sent me unsolicited emails attempting to dig up dirt on Yurt.
Click to expand...
This really is the heart of the matter. We are all mostly anonymous here. If you said I had HIV and it was true what would be the ACTUAL harm in saying it. With the exception of a handful of people here, none of you know my true identity. If that is the case have I actually been harmed? I would say no. A good lawyer MIGHT be able to persuade a judge differently to get a lawsuit beyond dismissal, but I am not sure you could a judge or jury to find anything but maybe one dollars worth of damages to say to the offender "you suck".
 
Socrtease said:
This really is the heart of the matter. We are all mostly anonymous here. If you said I had HIV and it was true what would be the ACTUAL harm in saying it. With the exception of a handful of people here, none of you know my true identity. If that is the case have I actually been harmed? I would say no. A good lawyer MIGHT be able to persuade a judge differently to get a lawsuit beyond dismissal, but I am not sure you could a judge or jury to find anything but maybe one dollars worth of damages to say to the offender "you suck".
Click to expand...

Just as I thought Howey is an empty vessel, a barrel to be precise, and as we all know they make the most noise.
 
Socrtease said:
Accusations of paedophilia if untrue would be libel or slander, if true a paedophile is probably on a public sex offenders list so not actionable.
Click to expand...

IT would also serve a public function to inform people about a true paedophile.
 
Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual who has HIV. For example, the*ADA would protect a woman (who does not have HIV) who was denied a job because her roommate had AIDS.
 
Howey said:
This:



and I explained why...

It is illegal under federal and state laws to disclose HIV status to a disinterested third party. If a hospital erroneously disclose a patient's HIV status to, say a vendor, the hospital could and will be sued for their actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHA regulations, the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Act, HIPAA, and COBRA.

As an attorney, you should be aware of this:

http://www.ada.gov/aids/ada_q&a_aids.htm



This has always been my complaint with this forum allowing USF and others to spread lies about my HIV status. As Socrates stated, the person stating the claim can (and in the case of USF, WILL BE) prosecuted for the words.

A forum owner, Damo, can merely be asked to remove the offending posts and ensure it doesn't happen again. Which is what I always wanted. Unfortunately, he never did that when asked by the forum host. I'm hoping that was out of ignorance of the law. We'll see.
Click to expand...

absolutely none of that contradicts my statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top