Here's a couple of generalities to keep in mind when posting to public
websites as defined by law surrounding public speaking. This information
comes from Alice D. Leiner, Attorney at Law, Perkins Coie, Seattle, in the
chapter she authored, "Speaking Within the Guidelines of the Law," as it was
published in the Washington Association for Biomedical Research Communications
Manual.
Both libel and slander are forms of defamation. Libel is written defamation,
slander is oral defamation.
The heart of defamation is a false statement of fact. A fact is theoretically
something provable as true or false; an opinion is not.
One cannot convert a statement of fact into a statement of opinion by adding
to the statement, "…it is my opinion that…"
Courts have generally been hostile toward those that express opinions that
suggest the opinion was formed by facts they are concealing. Moreover, courts
may treat such statements as implicity, including it as a statement of fact,
and then examine whether it is true.
In Washington, a person is liable for defamation if they are "at fault" for
having made a false statement. Avoiding being at fault with regards to most
citizens (not celebrities) means there is a reasonable basis for what you say
or write. Repeating gossip does not protect one from being at fault.
Another important issue is republication. That is, one cannot insulate
themselves from being at fault by repeating something they were told that
turns out to be defamatory and causes damage to someone else. If on the other
hand what was republished had a reasonable basis for being fact but still
proved false, it may be used to insulate one from the liability of defamation,
i.e. incorrect eyewitness testimony, an error in the public record, etc.
Be careful what you post on the web about people or organizations in which the
people that make up that organization may suffer damages. You might have to
pay. With the same vigor that one questions authority, I urge you to question
the source.
Charlie Powell