Is it ever illegal to spread true facts with malicious intent? Crimes such as defamation usually require that the statement being said is false - truth is an absolute defense. Are there any situations or jurisdictions where truth is not a defense against defamation, incitement to hatred, or similar crimes or torts? For example: Malicious gossip: widely spreading word that someone cheated on their wife. Their employer hears about it and fires them. Otherwise their employer had no reason to know this. Facts out of context: &quot;Mr XYZ won't deny being a pedophile&quot; but only because he hangs up every time the reporter asks. Plain old defamation, in some jurisdictions. Contextual implication: &quot;Black people commit more than 50% of violent crimes&quot; [because they are inherently violent beings and something should be done to control them] Stock price manipulation: &quot;XYZ Corp is doing terribly&quot; [so is every company in that sector but I want the price of XYZ Corp in particular to go down]
england-and-wales Yes As well as the general offence of comtempt of court by publishing facts in breach of a court order, there are also two statutory provisions making it an offence if those facts reveal a person's identity (maliciously or not): section 1, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: (1) Where an allegation has been made that an offence to which this Act applies has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed. (2) Where a person is accused of an offence to which this Act applies, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed (“the complainant”) shall during the complainant’s lifetime be included in any publication. [...] The relevant offences are listed in section 2 (being rape and a number of other serious sexual offences). section 49, Children and Young Persons Act 1933: (1) No matter relating to any child or young person concerned in proceedings to which this section applies shall while he is under the age of 18 be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as someone concerned in the proceedings. (2) The proceedings to which this section applies are— (a) proceedings in a youth court; (b) proceedings on appeal from a youth court (including proceedings by way of case stated); (c) proceedings in a magistrates' court under Schedule 7 to the Sentencing Code (proceedings for breach, revocation or amendment of youth rehabilitation orders); (d) proceedings on appeal from a magistrates' court arising out of any proceedings mentioned in paragraph (c) (including proceedings by way of case stated). [...]
If an AI chatbot such as Bing Chat or ChatGPT said factually untrue things that did measurable harm to a real person's reputation, would that person have a case against the company that owns the chatbot for defamation? There can be liability for defamation, although the circumstances would determine who the liable party is. For instance, an owner's warning to the user about a risk of inaccuracies may have the effect of shifting to the user the issue of requisite degree of fault. See In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 593 (2015). The user ought to be judicious as to whether to publish the chatbot's output. Ordinarily, negligence suffices for liability in a scenario that involves special damages, i.e., concrete, ascertainable harm. My understanding is that a key part of defamation is malicious intent, which does not really apply to a non-sentient piece of software. Under defamation law, malice is not about feelings or emotional state. The term refers to reckless disregard for the truth or falsity or the statement or to publication despite publisher's awareness of the falsity of the satement. Id at 593. Regardless, malice needs to be proved only if the plaintiff is a public figure or in claims of defamaton per se, where damage to a person's reputation is presumed (and hence the damage does not need to be proved). What if the company was aware of the harm being done but chose not to take action? The terms of use might protect the company against liability. Absent any such protections, the company might be liable because its awareness and inaction are tantamount to the aforementioned reckless disregard for the truth of its product's publications.
Defamation Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander, or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation. Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed. So, to protect yourself, don't say things that could harm the ex-employer's reputation, or, if you do, be sure you can prove that what you said is objectively true or obviously a statement of personal opinion. &quot;Joe is a a dickhead&quot; is a statement of opinion and not defamatory. If you say &quot;Joe is a thief&quot;, you better be able to produce the record of his conviction for larceny. Non-disparagement clauses If your contract with an ex-employer with such a clause then you must abide by it. This will limit what you can say about the ex-employer as spelled out in the contract - it may be you can't say anything negative but it may also be that you can't say anything at all. Breach of confidence Legally enforceable obligations to maintain confidence may arise in contract and equity. A contractual obligation of confidence can arise from express terms in a contract, but also by implication. An equitable obligation of confidence can arise where the formalities for the formation of a contract are not present. The obligation arises where information with the necessary quality of confidence is imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. Such circumstances will exist where the information is imparted on the understanding that it is to be treated by the confidant on a limited basis, or where the confidant ought to have realised that in all the circumstances the information was to be treated in such a way. Breach of the obligation occurs where there is an unauthorised use, not only where there is unauthorised disclosure, of the information. Fiduciary duties Depending on your role with the ex-employer, you may retain fiduciary duties that continue beyond the end of your relationship. Ex-directors certainly have such duties but sufficiently tightly placed non-director executives (C suite level) may also have these.
In the US, there are no (and can be no) laws against hate speech. You also cannot sue a person for using an ethnic or similar epithet. A false accusation, however, might be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. Word connotations do not matter, what matters is the denotation, for example calling someone a "rapist" denotes a specific criminal act. Even calling someone a rapist isn't necessarily defamatory, since hyperbole abounds especially on the internet, so in order to actually be defamation, the statement would have to be understood as a particular accusation (a form of unlawful sexual assault). A defamatory statement has to be made with reckless disregard for the truth of a statement, which is not the case in the situation you describe (perhaps the person correctly said that so-and-so is a therapist, but was ineffective in their use of English).
What legal options do I have here? I don't think I can sue for defamation of character since the email was sent to me only. Your rationale about defamation is accurate with respect to the establishment (henceforth "company"). But you may sue the person(s) who approached the company to falsely accuse you of that crime. Being banned certainly qualifies as special damage (that is, concrete damage), whence you have a viable claim of defamation per quod. If the crime that was falsely imputed to you is a felony or serious crime, then you additionally have a viable claim of defamation per se. I was thinking that I may have some legal recourse since the email clearly threatens to defame my character if I re-enter the establishment You have legal remedies, although not necessarily from this angle. The company can credibly argue that it sought to discourage you from contravening the "safety measure" it adopted in response to the accusations made about you. If it turns out that the company fabricated any false accusations it divulges, though, then you could sue the company for torts related to --and in addition to-- its defamatory falsehoods. So far the information you share here shows no signs of company's involvement in inventing the false accusations. What legal options do I have here? You need to ask the company for source and details of the information. In line with this comment, you should also ensure the company is aware of the mistaken identity. If the company declines to listen to you --and ideally see any proofs you have--, that could evidence some sort of tortious conduct on the company's part. Beware that in Florida a defamed person is required to demand a retraction of the false accusations prior to filing a defamation suit. Absent that request for retraction, it will be very easy for the sued defamer(s) to have your complaint dismissed. If the company refuses to disclose the source of the false information, then you need to seek injunctive relief in court. That means suing the company so as to (1) compel the company to identify the person(s) who accused you, and perhaps (2) strike the ban that the company put in place as a result of the false accusations. Even if you don't prevail in striking the ban, the court proceedings would give you the occasion to set the record straight and prevent the company from defaming you if you legitimately expose (to the public) the arbitrariness of its ban. To be clear, the company can always indulge in defaming you for the sake of justifying its ban, although that would be dumb in light of what you will have proved in court by then. In jurisdictions where a request for retraction is not mandatory, a plaintiff who does not know the identity of his defamer(s) may (1) file suit against "Doe defendants", (2) subpoena the non-party company so as to obtain records related to the false accusations (obviously ensuring that these reveal the authorship thereof), and (3) upon production of subpoena records and requesting the identified defamer for a retraction, amend the complaint to properly identify the defendant. This would be more efficient than filing two suits (one for injunctive relief against the company, and another against the defamers). However, I am uncertain of whether this would work in Florida, given its pre-suit requirement of request for retraction.
It's hard to say, given how little we know about the case and the information, also what you mean by &quot;corrupted&quot; and what your evidence is. Here are two hypothetical cases that illustrate different possibilities. 1: The accused instructs the lawyer to tell the judge &quot;My client has an alibi against the robbery charge: at the time, he was murdering his brother&quot;. Lawyer deems this to be a bad argument because murder is punished more severely than robbery. The lawyer is doing his job, protecting the interest of the client. No crime or civil wrong. 2: The accused instructs the lawyer to tell the judge &quot;My client has an alibi against the robbery charge: at the time, he was in church&quot;. The lawyer doesn't understand that this is exculpatory evidence, thinking &quot;they never asked about church, there's no point in me raising this issue&quot;. The client can probably sue for incompetence. There are possible criminal charges possible, for example if the lawyer is working for The Mob he might be involved in an actual criminal conspiracy.
First thing is, the statement has to be with a specific governmental sphere, such as in a submission to a court, or a document with some legal weight submitted to a party where the government has mandated that the declaration be &quot;sworn&quot; (an employment application involving security clearances; a DMCA takedown notice which has a connection to copyright law). Second, the statement has to be material, i.e. has &quot;a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed&quot; Kungys v. US, 485 U.S. 759. Third, you have to know that the statement is false (mistakes of knowledge are not perjury): the lie has to be willful. Fourth, the statement has to be literally false (Bronston v. US, 409 U.S. 352). W.r.t. the Bronston standard, a desire to not reveal a fact when testifying in a proceeding does not render the statement perjurious, when the statement is literally true but incomplete, thus telling the whole truth is not required (attorneys are expected to detect incomplete responses and press the issue on things not said). The edges of &quot;literal truth&quot; are a bit murky. What distinguishes Bronston from a number of cases of literally true perjury is that Bronston's testimony contained a clear sign that it was incomplete, but other &quot;literally true&quot; false statements (de Zarn, for example) contained nothing that an alert attorney could focus on. See US v. Robbins where defendant offered &quot;11th and MacArthur&quot; as the name of a corporation, the one in question, then falsely testified that it had no assets – the name of the corporation was actually &quot;MacArthur and 11th Properties, Inc.&quot;.
Is it legal to publish a cease and desist letter that I have received? Generally speaking, yes. My interpretation of your post is that you published your opinion about a business or businessperson, and the businessperson now is trying to intimidate you or deter you from sharing with others your opinion. The phrase &quot;the actionable statements listed are clearly statements of my opinion&quot; is otherwise unclear. Under defamation law, only false statements of fact are actionable whereas statements of opinion are not. The businessperson is not entitled to your silence. If your criticism is about the business, the cease and desist letter sounds in unfair and misleading practices to the extent that the business is trying to conceal from the public some inconvenient information that you as actual or potential customer possess. Even if you published as a competitor, your statements would have to be untrue and misleading for these to constitute disparagement. See the Black's Law Dictionary definition of disparagement [of Goods]. For the reasons stated in the other answer, copyright issues are not a matter of concern. It is preferable to publish the letter as is. Transparency preempts confusion as to &quot;I said, he said&quot;. By contrast, paraphrasing the letter for the purpose of avoiding an imaginary violation of copyright creates a risk of you inadvertently giving him grounds for a claim of defamation.