Thursday, May 21, 2015

Defamation vs Opinion

Publicly calling someone a 'stalker' when they know its false is defamation
Certain people, who have made themselves quasi 'public figures' by running a public blog which specializes in attacking other people, like to throw around words like "defamation" or "slander" or "libel".

Interestingly enough I myself have sought legal advice in regards to filing a lawsuit against this person. This is a  problematic approach to deal with an irritating character who derives some sort of bizarre pleasure from attacking people they don't like.

When someone claims you are a 'stalker' when the facts prove that you are not a 'stalker' that is indeed defamation/libel/slander, whatever word you would like to use.

The next question is, "what damage did it cause to you?" and "how do you quantify that damage". In my case it caused no quantifiable damage. Just somebody making up lies about me to no ends. Yes I was slandered, but so what?  Sure I could spend a bunch of money for 'specific performance'.  But why bother at all?  Why would I care what she writes? This same person has already sued me twice, and lost both times. Ellen Fox has been hounding me for over 6 years now. So she threatens to sue me yet a 3rd time. Go ahead Ellen, waste more of our time and money so that you can 'be right'. Most likely you'll lose again.

Now I've publicly called this person "crazy", and that is my right. That is MY OPINION.  Opinions are protected.

Let me make this clear:  I genuinely believe, based on the evidence, that she suffers from a very serious personality disorder.
Borderline Personality Disorder: Heroic Martyr or Emotional Vampire?
Several recent dismissals of defamation claims based on statements the courts found to be constitutionally protected opinion have reaffirmed the opinion defense as one of the most potent tools available to individuals or organizations sued for libel.

If the person defamed was a private person, in most states, the person making the defamatory statement can only be held liable for defamation if he/she:

  • knew that the statement was false and defamatory, or
  • acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statement in making the statement, or
  • acted negligently in failing to ascertain whether the statement was true or false before making it.
To act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of a statement means that the person making the statement had serious doubts as to the truth of the statement, but they went ahead and made it anyway.

It's too bad that this pissing contest with Ellen just keeps going on and on. What a waste of time and energy for both of us. 
Queen of crazy Ellen Fox will never stop bothering me

No comments: