Germany and 'that' ban

But then you are talking about violation of contract, not libel or slander. As for my shady past, it is public record.

They never gonna ban sex in SL.

















They might, however, ban everything but hetero missionary, under the covers, with the lights off, and only if we making a baby.

Well, with regard to the ToS and CS, that's rather begging the question. The REASON it is part of THAT contract in the first place is because it has been determined by LL that "truth statements" about RL are in some way at least potentially harmful, no? So, if the truth is always a defence, WHY was that particular determination made? Why are there rules (even in RL) prohibiting us from revealing all that we know about someone else?

I would argue that it is because the truth is NOT always a defence. Sometimes, the truth can be used maliciously, with an intent to harm. And it is that intent that is at issue.

One of the big differences between the law in the US and the law in the UK? and Canada?.

Here the truth is always a defense, plus we have wide latitude with regard to stating opinion and when talking about "public personalities".

The law in the UK is very different, I was reading an article last week about how the UK is used by various people as the place to file libel and slander charges, usually against American journalists and authors since the action would pretty much be dismissed in the States.

Say you are a Saudi prince who gives money to group which supports the abolition of Lichenstein. I write a book reporting that. In the States, the judge rules against you. But the book was published in the UK, so you file charges there and win a huge settlement.

It doesn't seem to me to be inconsistent. I guess the basis of libel is that it damages your good name. If you don't have a good name to start with, or if the good name is undeserved and the material complained about is merely bringing that to light, then there's no damage, or none that's not, ultimately, self-inflicted.

It's *an element* of libel that the material complained about tends to injure your reputation. It's *another* element that it's untrue. *Both* need to be there -- often with some other elements, too -- before it can be libelous, as opposed to hurtful or upsetting.

Ah, ok. This does make sense. Your last para in particular makes clear something that was certainly implied in your initial description, but about which I wasn't entirely sure.

However, a judge might have issued a gagging order, and if you still publish information about that person, whether true or not, you are in violation. Same goes for state secrets, revealing the truth can still land you in hot water, and there are many other restrictions on free speech, whether it is true or not.

Rock

and with one foot touching the floor

Or tentacle.

Not sure which part you don't understand, but to be libel or slander, it HAS to be false, and with malice aforethought (at least, in the US).

Stating what you believe to be the truth can be a violation of privacy or a nondisclosure agreement, or can even downright rude, but by definition, it isn't slander or libel.

Sure. All I was trying to do was explain libel. If publishing the truth puts you in contempt of court or breach of the Official Secrets Act (in the UK) or breaks your duty of confidentiality in certain circumstances, you may well find yourself in trouble, though not for committing libel.

Have you and Rock submitted a post to Jig's "what do you do in RL" thread? I know someone there was asking about lawyers in SL . . .

It can be. There is a level of responsibility. It can't be reckless and reputation-destroying.

Just put things in opinion form or question form. Use the words if and allegedly. That will usually skirt the danger.

It's still awful but it's legal. How else do tabloids get away with printing outright lies. This, and also they pay people to act as 'source' even if they were not.

Allegedly.

If you're not lying, it's not called libel, slander, or defamation, regardless of the results.

Well, here's some food for thought:

The game Postal 2 is banned in stores in Australia. YET- its perfectly OK to buy the digital download??


The guys who pass these laws most likely never heard of or played video games.

The kid who puts the blame on Counter Strike? Part of the "I dont want to take responsibility for my own actions" culture thats developed.