From: "¥ UltraMan ¥" 
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair misc.consumers.house misc.legal
Subject: Re: Liben, Leben, Loben and slander (Re: insurance question)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:48:39 -0600
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1pFlIYBNqQB4MOovaofkTZEzGI0=
Bytes: 3152

Stan Brown wrote:
> Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:57:36 -0400 from mm :
>> They also often insure you for libel and slander, which are somewhat
>> intentinoal, and I was hoping they would have a practical manual to
>> go with that so I could avoid committing libel.
>
> In the US, truth is an absolute defense against an action for
> defamation (libel or slander). If you confine yourself to facts, then
> as a matter of law you have not committed libel or slander.

Nope:

Colorado's criminal libel statute provides:

              (1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by
              written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or 
object
              tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach 
the
              honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural 
defects of
              one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, 
contempt,
              or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

              (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was 
true,
              except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels
              tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

              (3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.

>
> A sufficiently pissed-off individual might sue you, but if you have
> stated only facts you will win.(*)

Wrong. Ibid.

>
> However ...
>
> Even if you win a court case, getting sued is no fun. In the US, with
> rare exceptions each party pays its own lawyers. So it may be better
> not to attract the attention of some company with deep pockets and
> lawyers on staff, because you have more to lose from being sued if
> you win than they have to lose if they lose.
>
>
> (*) Okay, there's the occasional horror story about a case that's
> decided wrongly. But those are notorious (like the McDonald's coffee
> case) because they're highly unusual. Ordinary folks don't need to
> worry about something like that, as a practical matter.