Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
Pete Dumpert said the following on 04/30/2006 08:43 AM:
> In the US, the plaintiff has to prove either malicious intent or (and this is
> the important one, I think) reckless disregard for the truth. SORBS policy
> explicitly states that they will not de-list you without paying their "fine",
> even if you can prove that you were given an already blacklisted address from
> an upstream provider and are not a spammer yourself. Sounds like reckless
> disregard for the truth to me.
Actually, that "actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth"
standard applies only to "public figures" (it's called the "New York
Times test" from New York Times v. Sullivan). If the plaintiff is not a
public figure, the traditional defamation standard. In general, a
public figure is someone like a politician or a public figure.
The standard for other plaintiffs, which varies a bit state-by-state,
requires (a) a defamatory statement (b) published to third parties which
(c) the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false (that
third requirement is relatively new and may not apply in all cases).
Just what is a "defamatory statement" gets interesting, but in general,
it's a statement that "tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and
expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or
degradation" (quote from a Minnesota case).
John
Reply to: