That's not libel -- at least not in the U.S. Perhaps Australian law is different. In the U.S., libel has to be false.
Are there exceptions? I got the impression from a TV show (I know not a reliable source) that it was libellous to spread something in sealed juvenile records.
It doesn't have to be false. If it's true and said with the intention of maliciously causing harm (or true and causes harm, regardless of intention, in some states, mostly about protected industries, like ranchers/cows in TX and oranges in FL), it can be libel.
Libel? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can it be libelous if it's true?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be libel and true at the same time if it invades privacy, but I don't think it applies in this case.
Re:Libel? (Score:1)
That's not libel -- at least not in the U.S. Perhaps Australian law is different. In the U.S., libel has to be false.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not libel -- at least not in the U.S. Perhaps Australian law is different. In the U.S., libel has to be false.
Are there exceptions? I got the impression from a TV show (I know not a reliable source) that it was libellous to spread something in sealed juvenile records.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/first-circuit-upends-accepted-understanding-truth-defense-defamation-cases [citmedialaw.org]