For a statement to be untrue, there has to be something or someone claiming that it is the truth. I have not seen CBJ make any false claims, and his need for evidence is nonexistant. All I have heard him say is that he doesn't trust Mark based on what Mark has said and done. Saying that Mark may trick or cheat someone out of something isn't libel, because it was said as a hypothetical idea.
"What if Wal-mart sets its employees on fire on Black Friday? I'm not buying from Wal-mart unless I get an answer, and neither should you!"
That's not libel. Or slander. Or defamation. It can be construed as such, but then again that is what our court systems are for, to decide for us what is acceptable and protected under free speech, and what is in direct violation of the clauses of free speech.
Besides, as a law student, you should know that the vast majority of libel/slander/defamation cases are not taken very seriously (at least not in the United States). Furthermore, for Mark to take CBJ to court, he would spend countless thousands of dollars to achieve virtually nothing. He could put CBJ through hell, but in the end CBJ would have the last laugh.
I'm not arguing with what the definition of libel is - myself and most everyone else here probably knows in full detail what it is. The problem is that nothing that has been said even remotely resembles libel, and if by some crazy stretch of the imagination it does, it is up to a judge to decide that. Not Mark, not CBJ, not myself and you either.
The Wal-Mart example wouldn't be libel in the first place because the actions they have achieved was indeed factual (setting employees on fire), so of course people would have nothing to be liable for, forming an opinion on such an action. That's covered by the constitute. Libel is supposed to be applicable in cases where no such arguable actions have been achieved and yet, people start making comments that harshly affect the future business of a company. I see nothing AFPCC has done wrong; all you are doing is disagreeing with the policies. That's fine. But based on your disagreement (which is purely a bias), you cannot go ahead and claim that a company is a fraud, is a scam, and ultimately defame the company. I don't believe I am wrong at all in this interpretation.
Here's an example of libel: An employer fires an employee for theft. Then, the employee start making rumours that the employer is a jerk who cheats on his wife and sleeps with multiple women every night. He can make the lie worse by photoshopping him with other women and spreading it over the net (let's assume he was amazing at it). But in fact, the employer does not cheat with his wife. Regardless, his wife is tricked and their relationship breaks down. His clients also see his actions as terribly wrong and his business fails.
Can you see the resemblance to this scenario? Future clients (FC) see a company's policies that aren't so usual. They dislike it, so they make claims about such company that is false. In fact, it turns out that AFPCC isn't a fraud or a scam at all. They could have had a successful business with happy customers if not for a strange rumour claiming that is was indeed a scam. Regardless, the other FCs who hear the rumour are tricked and the business and client relationship breaks down, destroying the company's attempts in the future.
That's libel there. There is no absolute truth involved, but rumours destroy the future of the employer and the AFPCC in the example above. Most libel problems of small companies are taken to the Small Claims Court, which is relatively cheaper, but more time consuming since more disputes are taken there. If a AFPCC can indeed prove in the future that what people of this forum have claimed really greatly decreased potential sales, then Mystery really can hold those who spread the rumour liable for the tort of defamation. Don't misread this and start saying BS like how some people might do. This is an
"if" situation.
In the case of what CBJ has claimed, there is no absolute truth, there is no absolute falseness either in his claim. Therefore, he is still liable for libel. Only the real truth can save him from that tort. I'm not saying he isn't making good claims or false claims. I'm saying his claims are not the truth, thus, no matter how well opinionated it is, it will turn out to be useless, seeing that he was getting very emotional in what I read and interpreted.
And yes, I do know the exact steps and process of how 2 entities are taken to court, the length of the period, the cost, etc. That's not the point. I'm simply saying something is libel and some others aren't libel, and one shouldn't confuse the two. Not that hard to understand, right?
You should study harder.
Nah, if I study any harder, the law firms all over the world will try to hire me. That's a pain in the ass, declining mails and phone calls of companies I don't want to even go to.
Show Posts