|
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party B
have any legal recourse against party A?
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party consent
state)?
WW
|
| |
| |
In article <h1in21po2mes6vr9kqcfqvi2d3tl3j30sn@4ax.com>,
<sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party B
have any legal recourse against party A?
Generally, no. (Perhaps there's Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress involved. There certainly isn't Slander.)
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party consent
state)?
No.
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <h1in21po2mes6vr9kqcfqvi2d3tl3j30sn@4ax.com>,
sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party B
have any legal recourse against party A?
I have no idea how UK law works, but here in the US, you normally
can express your opinion without any issues, other than losing
a friend or starting a fight. To do anything, one would have
to file a lawsuit. That can be expensive. You then would have
to prove what was said, prove that harm was intended, and show
how you were damaged in dollars and cents. This can involve
huge amounts of legal fees, and it is surprisingly hard to
prevail in such cases.
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party consent
state)?
Recording without telling the other person can sometimes get you
in big trouble. For example, recording telephone conversations.
It would be best to consult with an attorney or destroy the tapes.
You should either find out for sure in your justice system, or
get rid of the tapes so they don't get stolen and you end up
causing serious damage to someone.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
"" wrote in misc.legal.moderated:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party B
have any legal recourse against party A?
Certainly not for defamation (libel or slander). Possibly -- but
it's a stretch -- for something like "intentional infliction of
emotional distress". Again, I say that's a stretch.
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party consent
state)?
It may change the ease of proving the facts, but not whether a tort
occurred.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party
B
have any legal recourse against party A?
Yes. Party B can inform party A that A is mistaken. It would seem
there is no need for any other recourse. After all, has 'A' been
harmed in any way?
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party
consent
state)?
The act of recording plainly does not change anything. If B
chooses to PLAY the recording for another, say party C, then
party C may conclude that party A is correct, even supposing
that party C had not already independently reached the same
conclusion. But even if B does play the recording for C and
the result is harm to B's reputaion in C's eyes that harm
was brought on to B by himself by playing the recording,
right?
--
FF
|
| |
| |
sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party B
have any legal recourse against party A?
That I can't answer. Intentional infliction of emotional distress?
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party consent
state)?
No change, other than the recording may be evidence. If B plays
the recording for C, A has no further liability.
But I'm not a lawyer.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party
B
have any legal recourse against party A?
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party
consent
state)?
WW
This type of situation is not defamation - there is no third party to
hear the "defamatory" statement, so no possible damages, other than
maybe you getting your feelings hurt.
While the recording may have been legal depending on your jurisdiction,
it is irrelevant as the only way the defamatory statement could now be
communicated to a third party is if you did it yourself.
You have no valid claim or legal recourse against "Party B."
This posting is not legal advise, but for discussion purposes. If you
want legal advise, hire a lawyer.
-David
|
| |
| |
In article <h1in21po2mes6vr9kqcfqvi2d3tl3j30sn@4ax.com>,
sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
If party A tells party B in private that they really beleive they are
psychologically unbalanced, and not fit to be around kids, does party B
have any legal recourse against party A?
What happens if party B records, without A's knowledge, the
conversation, does that change anything (assume a single party consent
state)?
If by "in private" you mean that A and B were the only ones to hear the
statement, you have no recourse at all. Beliefs are not actionable.
If the statement was repeated to others, published, or in some way used
against you, you _might_ have grounds for a libel/slander/defamation
case.
--
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."
|
| |
| |
In article <vuev21huka2v4hghvuf42vlhhrlc3o27cn@4ax.com>,
Dave <dland@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
sealand_redirect@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
BThis type of situation is not defamation - there is no third party to
hear the "defamatory" statement, so no possible damages, other than
maybe you getting your feelings hurt.
What if Party B has Multiple Personality Disorder, and the personality
listening to A isn't the same as the one being defamed?
Seth
|
| |
| |
In article <gek431tm6qrs9c90ib12rj15ur6uja03lu@4ax.com>,
sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
Dave <dland@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
What if Party B has Multiple Personality Disorder, and the personality
listening to A isn't the same as the one being defamed?
Then we're watching an episode of "The Practice."
--
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."
|
| |
| |
|
