libel/slander in an email???

[itsmedave]

Weird situation came up.

 

Some people who usually gossip face to face did so in an email. This email was then forwarded to one of the gossipees. Upset, gossipee threatens lawsuit/jail time for gossipers for slander and libel because others saw the email as well.

 

Any idea on Thai law for this?

 

Or, in related situation, suppose somebody posted something here that another took offense to. Could a successful lawsuit be pending???

[chuckwoww]

Libel is the written form of slander and I'm pretty sure emails can be libellous if a) they are published for others to see and the person libelled can prove defamation. I don't think just offending somebody is necessarily libellous. Proving defamation is the hard part. No idea how these laws are applied in Thailand.

[Nervous_Dog]

In Australia you have to prove the actions caused damage, i.e loss or potential loss of income etc.

 

Not sure how that works in Thailand

 

DOG

[elef]

"Or, in related situation, suppose somebody posted something here that another took offense to. Could a successful lawsuit be pending???"

 

In which country do you want to make that lawsuit? In the US (where the server stays), in Thailand or in the country the suspect stays. Good luck!

[Stickman]

Libel / slander is very nasty in Thailand. It is both criminal AND civil and yes, email and internet is most certainly a medium that is included.

 

Stick

[ALHOLK]

What an interesting view considering that I was sbjected to this on a number of boards a couple of years ago and you had no problem with it. ::

[Guest]

I don't know about the email aspect of it, but libel and defamation do seem to quite serious here. Remember TRT and PAD (Sondhi) were filing all sorts of criminal complaints and lawsuits against each other for libel.

 

Fortunately, it backfired in one political case. Shin filed a lawsuit against a earnest and attractive 20ish female reporter for her reporting on political ties between Shin and the ruling party (imagine that!). It turned into a lose/lose situation for Shin. If they won the suit, they would have looked like bullies. If they lost, it meant their claims were groundless and the suit was all about political intimidation. They got so desparate that they offered to quietly drop all charges, but she insisted on a trial and she won.

 

Back on subject, if you do a search on The Nation website about that lawsuit (or the more recent ones), you can see just how nasty libel suits here can be. (I think the Bangkok Post also got sued for libel for reporting they're are or were cracks in one of the runways of the new aiport.)

 

You'd be hard pressed to see a politician suing anyone for libel in the US. I have heard that because of the First Amendment it is easier to win a libel suit in England (not 100% sure on this), and that US celebrities try to sue in England when a magazine publishes something outrageous about them (e.g., Actress X married to Actor Y is pregnant with Actor A's child, etc.) So, in answer to elef's question, I bet you would try to sue somewhere outside the US. I am pretty sure there is no such thing as criminal defamation in the US; you hear about that here all the time, but I don't recall ever hearing about such a case in the US.

[khwaimaisabai]

Hi gadfly,

I think you are right about its being easier to sue in England. I remember years ago a case brought by Telly Savalas (Kojak) which he won in the English courts.

Khwai

[Evel_Penivel]

Gadfly -

 

There are a few states in the U.S. that still have criminal defamation laws on the books, but they are considered obsolete and never used.

 

It is correct that it's harder to win a libel suit in the U.S. than any other country. Under U.S. law, the plaintiff must prove that the defamatory remarks are untrue and that he or she has suffered actual damage because of the remarks. If the plaintiff is a public personality - that can be an elected or appointed official as well as movie stars, singers, musicians, etc. - it's even tougher. A public personality must prove the defendant knowingly made defamatory statements with actual malice and that the remarks caused real harm. It's almost impossible for a politician to prove he lost an election or for an actor tp prove he stopped getting roles solely because of an untrue newspaper article. In many European countries, as well as nations with legal systems based on either common law or the Napoleonic Code, the defendant must prove the remarks ithat were made are true, i.e., the burden of proof is reversed.

 

Also in the U.S., there is a very clear distinction between fact and opinion. To say a chief is the worst cook in the world isn't defamatory, to say 27 people suffered food poisoning in his restaurant would be subject to legal action if untrue. But the truth is always an absolute defense in the U.S. In many other countries, there also has to be ä "compelling reason in the public interest" for the publication of a defamatory article. For example, if a U.S. newspaper said John Smith had been convicted of drunk driving 30 years ago and could produce court documents to prove he had been convicted, then the newspaper would win a libel case, no matter how embarassing or damaging the revelation would be for Smith.

 

What's interesting about libel suits and the Internet is the way some plaintiffs may "shop" for jurisdiction. Dow Jones & Co., which publishes The Wall Street Journal, Barron's and others, has been sued abroad several times - and lost.

 

Dow Jones vs Gutnick

 

EP

[Hugh_Hoy]

chuckwoww said:

Libel is the written form of slander

uh...actually, libel is a form of "defamation"; as is slander. Libel is comprised of those statements which are written/printed, but also include the broadcast media; a statement maybe be considered slander only if it is spoken

 

(Torts I)

 

HH