Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkScribe
Not so. That is one of the most common misconceptions about defamation. The truth is generally, but not always a defence. It depends on the intent.
|
I'm not an expert on UK law, but Harry did say "libel" and not "defamation," which is a broader concept. In the US, for example, where it is much more difficult to prosecute a libel case than in the UK, truth is an absolute defense to libel. But it isn't a defense to certain other offenses involving communication, such as "invasion of privacy," where someone publishes embarrassing (but true) information of a private nature concerning a private individual. I.e., if you find an embarrassing package of love letters that fell out of my pocket, you can't necessarily publish them on your blog without repercussions. (Although you may be able to if I'm a public figure, or if they relate to a matter of genuine public interest.)
But none of these niceties really are at issue in this particular case, where the pirate himself invited the attention by letting hundreds or thousands or millions of people know that he was a pirate. If Goodkind could file a suit against the guy (which would be public document including all of the facts already published, possibly more), he can also make this information public without filing suit.
OT - The background on why some people don't like Goodkind is interesting. I read "Wizard's First Rule," which I liked enough to read the second book in the series, which I didn't like enough to to read any more by him. But since those books are fairly conventional, not to say formulaic, I always wondered about why some people felt so strongly about him.