Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
Clearly you don't have the strongest understanding of legal liability. Posting this on the Internet with the level of descriptiveness you did exposes you to the possibility of charges of libel. Like you say, nobody will probably find out. But the reason I question your judgment is you clearly haven't thought through the cost/benefit here. What do you gain out of doing this? Venting? That's an emotional decision and shows you're too reactionary to ever be considered for management duties where thinking before pressing send isn't just a suggestion, it's required.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
I assure you, I think before I act on anything. I'm pretty analytical about stuff and I'm quite aware of the situation. Hell, I work in a field dictated on logic. Libel. That would mean something I said is false. Well considering I have the evidence and people to back up the statements, I'd say what I said was the truth. Libel is when the statements are false. Maybe JR can roll into here and shed some light on the legal aspect of it. I mean hell, if Dan Snyder didn't have a shot in hell at winning against Dave McKenna on the piece he wrote, what's the odds on some bum winning against what I said? I told you, we have evidence (which we save) of these wrongdoings. Pictures, camera footage, falsified documents....and so on.
|
Both Schneed10's and NCSkin's statements are true.
Statements impugning someone's character that are false are, in general, actionable. The picture itself could be cause for a claim of "false light" - taking a true statement/photo out of context to impugn a person's character.
Based on the picture and his description, is NC
open to charges of libel? Yup.
If everything NC says is true and he has the evidence to back it up, then, after depositions, document discovery and subpoenas for records, he will likely prevail after a motion for summary judgment. However, if the other side can bring in enough to make
any of the various
factual (not opinion) statements a question of fact that reasonable people could differ on, then it would go to trial if even on a limited basis.
As a State employee, it is unlikely the State is open to any sort of suit based on this because posting on a football website is clearly outside the scope of NC's duties even if he does so in business hours. The same would likely be true for any employer although some of the statements imply that the higher ups know of the behavior. So a suit against them would be unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss but just might.
Given the anonymity of the internet, someone would need to have some real desire to bring suit. If they did, had an ax to grind, and found out NC's identity, a lawsuit would ensue.
Based just on the statements posted and the pictures specifically identifying the guy, any such lawsuit drafted by a reasonably competent attorney would survive a Motion to Dismiss because to do so all you have to do is state a legal basis for recovery: NC made defamatory statements about me, they are false, I am entitled to damages. The dispute is not legal but factual. Accepting that what NC says is true (and I, a State employee also, do) NC would prevail in the end, but only after retaining an attorney, paying for depositions, paying for the attorney to draft & argue a motion for judgment, and, possibly, going to court.
It would take a driven plaintiff, but proving you are correct could turn into an expensive proposition -- I have a case where a former employee is suing the employer for asking him to resign after he sexually assaulting another person at the office. He will lose because he is wrong, and I will have great fun arguing to the jury - but it is costing my client a ton to prove it.
... and that is my two cents. You can send my retainer through my paypal account.