Defamation

So, we all know that the contents of this blog (as the title rather expressly notes) are the product of my teeming brain, which means the larger share of it is merely my opinions, and therefore rather worthless, other than perhaps the humor it brings to my few—but faithful—readers. Yet there are sections of factual material (which usually serve as the springboard into the abyss that is my mind), so I feel some need to present these sections as accurately as possible, especially because of the looming threat of a defamation lawsuit. (I know, so few people read my blog—or even know about it—that it's entirely improbable that I will get sued, but please just humor my delusions of grandeur.)

Anyway, I actually got to worrying about a libel lawsuit being brought against me, so I turned to my good ol' friend Wikipedia for some help determining whether I'm guilty of that offense. (Yes, I'm becoming increasingly dependent on Wikipedia, largely because I have little access to a library as I write and edit these posts from China.) [For the full article, click here.] I found some reassurance under the "United States Law" section: "Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.
This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution."

In the "Defenses" section I found even greater assuagement:

1. "Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light." So I'm safe, right? Truth is an absolute defense, and I would never knowingly mislead my readers. The genesis about my thoughts on defamation was a particular restaurant at which I ate tonight (see tomorrow's post), and anyone who goes there will certainly find that the statements I will make are incontrovertible.

2. "Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources." Again, I try really hard to remember the details, sometimes I even jot them down in my little black memo pad to assist my memory. Unless otherwise noted, everything on my blog is true, to the best of my knowledge.

3. "Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege." Roughly 90% of my blog is composed of my opinions, so I really only need to worry about that remaining 10%.

4. "Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected." While the particulars of any one entry might be contested, I think in general I do not write "maliciously—with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm," as LawDictionary.com requires for use of the fair comment defense. Moreover, how could a restaurant review not be considered in the public general interest? Clearly it is of great benefit to the general public to know where they should eat and not eat, or at least to set their expectation levels before going on a family dinner to a restaurant they can't shirk their way out of.

So things were looking really good: I had one absolute defense on my side, plus three other slightly less omnipotent weapons should the first one fail. Then I came across "defamation per se":

"All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, and Tennessee recognize some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include allegations or imputations 'injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession.'" Uh-oh. What exactly does that mean that my statement needn't be proved defamatory? That the plaintiff need not prove actual damages were incurred, or that some of the established qualifications for defamation (i.e. that the statement be untrue) no longer apply? Yikes!

And now I'm thinking that my writing this post could somehow be construed as an indication that I aware of the likelihood of defamation resulting from its publication, and be used against me in a civil suit...Curses on our litigious society!