doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What is considered liable and slander

Many have asked about certain dealers or individuals who sell guns and their records of performance, trustworthyness, honesty, etc.

what is the risk that one would run if they were to post a series of emails bewteen a seller and a buyer and it shows promises made but not kept (lies) and disengenuosu pratcices. would there be any legal risks involved.

Not if they are factual and you can demonstrate that. It still doesn't keep someone from trying to make an allegation stick. I would guess most people who visit this forum would like to hear
about shady practices involving our passion.

Emails can be faked and/or altered, thus are not legal proof in court - unless they were taken from an impounded computer in some cases, or the server. If you repost alleged emails on the forum and someone thinks it damaged their character and/or business, then they may be able to execute a successful suit.
If you posted the generalities of the incident, and then sent detailed emails to those expressing a more detailed interest, I would think you would minimize the risk.

I do not believe posting honest historic emails without any comments which mischaracterize them can create a liable or slander case. Now the issue of a privacy invasion is a different matter. I simply don't know if there are any privacy rights to emails sent to an individual. Jake

Anyone can sue pretty much anybody for pretty much anything. That's the bad news. But in a case like that you describe, it would be interesting to see how the dealer reacted, as the bigger the deal he makes of it, the worse the PR could get for him, especially if lots of other guys have had similar experiences and start weighing-in. I'm curious to hear more thoughts and experiences on this. Many here may be in the same boat, but I've had similar questions and concerns, in the aftermath of my own dealings with a particularly unsavory (and well known) dealer I had the misfortune to do business with. TT

Nobody is going to sue anybody over what is said here. No ordinary mortal could bear the cost and the intricacies of proof would be unwieldy. Look at the trouble celebs have with the Enquirer. If someone's rotten, most of us want the blab on it, go for it.

You can always state "your opinion" and use the phrase, "I believe" when you say something. Can't get you for slander if you state your opinions or beliefs and/or show why you feel the way you do.

It's not that simple, Jimmy. The US is the most litigious country on earth. Canada and the UK are lenient by comparison concerning defamation, libel and slander--- and costs. Truth and what you believe matter naught. If you said out of pure malice I had a contagious venerial disease or was a wife-beater or pedophile, holding me to public ridicule, even if true you'd likely lose. I do not believe that a straight, accurate description of a transaction would land anyone in court. Let readers make up their minds. Just leave the liar fireworks out of it. A lie is something you say that you know not to be true. Don't imply motives or intent. A complaint framed in the public interest always trumps spite and spleen.

Defamation (libel or slander), by definition, must involve a factually false statement. If what you write is factually true, it cannot be libel. Also if what you say cannot be determined to be factually false (if for example it is an opinion) then it cannot be defamation.

I might invade your privacy by telling others that you have a disease, and be liable for invading privacy, but it will not be libel.

"Slander" and "Libel" redirect here. For other uses, see Slander (disambiguation) and Libel (disambiguation).
For "liable", see Liability.
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.