Can using a &quot;simile&quot; constitute defamation? Suppose someone said, &quot;X looks like someone with a venereal disease.&quot; That is known as a simile. Now &quot;X has a venereal disease&quot; would constitute defamation (if untrue). But the statement was &quot;X looks like...&quot; In the United States would the following, or other defenses hold: 1) &quot;X looks like...&quot; is a statement of opinion rather than fact, and therefore not defamatory?&quot; 2) An expert (e.g medical) witness testifies that a picture of X looks like that of someone with a (certain) venereal disease, whether or not s/he actually has it?&quot; How about the United Kingdom, where defamation laws are more plaintiff-friendly?
If a factual statement is implied, rather than explicit, it can still constitute defamation. &quot;T looks like a thief&quot; may be an expression of opinion (&quot;I think that T might be a thief&quot;) or it might be a slightly oblique way of saying &quot;T is a thief&quot;. That would ultimately be a matter for the finder of fact, often a jury in the united-states, to determine. See HG.org,s page on &quot;Defamation by Implication&quot; The article &quot;Libel and Slander 101: Defamation By Implication&quot; by Daniel R. Warner of RM Warner, a lawyer specializing in Internet defamation, among other kinds of cases, cites and discusses as cases where US coiurts have upheld defamation by implication: Kendall v. Virgin Island Daily News in March 2013. (3rd Circuit) Plaintiff was a public figure and had to show actual malice, defendants were a reporter and a newspaper; Woods v. Evansville Press Co: (7th Circuit). The Court held that &quot;an implied statement, just as a statement made in direct language, can be defamatory.&quot; Newton v. National Broadcasting, Co.:
Jurisdiction: england-and-wales Section 2(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provides: It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. If a newspaper prints that a person has been accused of a crime and that person has in fact been accused of a crime, then the statement is truthful and there is no defamation. It would be different if the newspaper printed that the person had committed the crime (which implies they have been found guilty). If you pay close attention to such news articles you will see that they are usually very careful to use words such as &quot;alleged&quot;, &quot;accused&quot;, &quot;is on trial for&quot; etc. See the case of Christoper Jefferies for an example of a person who was accused of a murder, but subsequently found innocent, and who successfully sued various newspapers for defamation. In that case the articles had gone beyond mere statements of fact: He cited several examples of headlines and stories that had been published, including a headline in The Sun describing Jefferies – a former schoolmaster at Clifton College – as weird, posh, lewd and creepy; a story from the Daily Express quoting unnamed former pupils referring to him as &quot;... a sort of Nutty Professor&quot; who made them feel &quot;creeped out&quot; by his &quot;strange&quot; behaviour; and an article from the Daily Telegraph, which reported Jefferies &quot;has been described by pupils at Clifton College ... as a fan of dark and violent avant-garde films&quot;. Jefferies launched legal action against six newspapers on 21 April – The Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Star, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Record – seeking damages for libel. It was held that the media were quick to jump to conclusions regarding Jefferies's arrest. Being a retired English teacher who lived alone, whose physical appearance and &quot;eccentrically unkempt white hair,&quot; made him stand out, led people to believe that he looked the type. Stephen Moss wrote in The Guardian: &quot;The unspoken assumption was that no one could look that odd and be innocent.&quot;
In a deposition, attorneys are supposed to keep their objections short and refrain from making an objection that indicates to the witness how he should answer. A question might be objectionable because it lacks foundation, because it is compound, because it calls for speculation, etc. Example 2, for instance, could be said to assume that Ms. Redacted was involved, and I might not want my client to discuss how he would act in that situation. Some attorneys in that situation might say, "Objection, assumes that Ms. Redacted had anything to do with this, which you haven't proved, and it's impossible to say what would have happened under circumstances that never happened." This gives my client a pretty clear signal that he ought to make clear that Ms. Redacted wasn't around, and that he should try to avoid getting pinned down on any questions about what he would have done if she had been. This practice -- known as "a speaking objection" -- can be used to signal to the witness how best to answer, and it leads to huge fights in a deposition. To avoid those fights, courts have developed a practice of requiring lawyers to simply "object to the form," rather than coaching the witness. That puts the objection on the record so it isn't waived, and if it's truly problematic, the parties have an opportunity to explain in greater detail after the deposition is concluded.
In the United States, we use the phrase "Reasonable Person" which is not to say an average person or a simple man, but an individual who understands the limitations of the situation and would act in accordance with that knowledge. For example, if a doctor improperly rendered help a patient, his actions would be evaluated based on reasonable knowledge of people with his medical knowledge, where as a person practicing medicine without a license would be subjected to a more common-man standard. The phrase person is therefor substituted for a reasonable individual and thus, a "Reasonable Landlord/Renter" could exist in housing cases, or a "Reasonable Doctor" in medical torts or "a Reasonable Woman" in sexual assault cases, so the "Reasonable Person" is often used to allow the jury to put themselves in the shoes of the witnesses and the accused and see how they would react (Historically, the term was called a "Reasonable Man" though "Reasonable Person" was used to make the term more neutral to what the definition of "Man" was (A human male or a member of the Human Species, regardless of gender).
It is legal to be wrong, it is legal to say false things in public (leaving out defamation), and it is legal to buy and manufacture signs that say false things. Moreover, the sign does not make a false statement, in that legal liability is distinct from moral responsibility. In fact, the sign helps to decrease their legal liability. Via this sign, you have been put on notice that the truck may spray a bit of gravel, so by following too closely, you are negligently contributing to the damage. This is what also underlies those disclaimer signs with "not responsible for theft from your auto". There is nothing "official in appearance" about this sign (a legal citation of a statute might have such an appearance).
How close is such a statement corresponding with the reality? Legally, such language is a meaningless statement of future intent that at best makes clear that the person making the statement isn't waiving any of their legal rights. Certainly, no infringer would have standing to sue if they failed to do so. Whether a joint venture member or foreign reseller could sue the company for failing to enforce its IP rights is another question that presents itself very differently and depends upon much more than what the warning labels state, such as the language in the joint partnership or reseller's agreement with the copyright owner. Also, in criminal copyright violation cases, even if the copyright owner asks for the maximum possible consequences, the U.S. Justice Department is under no obligation whatsoever to go along with that request. Likewise, a judge has no obligation to impose the maximum penalty allowed by law following a criminal conviction, even if the copyright owner and the U.S. Justice Department both request a maximum sentence for someone who pleas guilty or is convicted of the offense following a trial. In practice, something like 98% of federal criminal cases, and a similar percentage of federal civil cases, result in agreed resolutions which result in less severe penalties than the maximum penalties allowed by law. This happens as a result of a mutual agreement to resolve the case with a guilty plea, or a settlement agreement in a civil case, or both. Also, in practice, none of these companies, nor the federal government's prosecutors, have the resources to press anything but the most clear and serious copyright violation cases, and cases that are valuable for P.R. purposes. Anything else is essentially a random lottery from myriad cases that could have been brought in order to counteract the argument (both political and legal) that their copyright protections are empty and completely unenforced is a large part of the cases to which the statutes would make it seem that they apply. Also, in a case brought by a joint venture owner or reseller for failure to enforce a copyright which causes the partner damages, presumably in some sort of breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty action, there would be no way to prove damages from all of the non-enforcement, since enforcing every known infringement would not be cost effective and would reduce the net profits of everyone involved.
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.
There's really no difference. Quoting from here, What if I change the person's name? To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the &quot;government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,&quot; it is still reasonably identifiable as the president. What does the whole thing depend on? It depends on how easy it is to identify the pseudonym-using plaintiff. They don't have more recourse, per se - nor do they have more protection under the law - but it may be harder for them to win the case. On the upside, the statement might not cause them as much harm when compared to a person using their actual name.