Slow Down Pardners II wrote:
Don't believe anything from phillymag.com. Like most businesses, they're all about the bottom line, and Mr. Rossi has yielded a lot of clicks. Now they're sensationalizing events once again. If you're so eager for a trial watch them because they will be sued for defamation by libel.
Do you even know what libel is? The Philadelphia Magazine in its latest reporting on Rossi in no way libeled him. They merely reported that he was arrested, which he was.
A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.
The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.
Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.)
This is why you or Rossi has not sued anyone who claimed he cheated or lied about it. He CANNOT prove that to be false because given his litigious nature, being the institigator and bully that he is, he would have sued himself silly by now for anyone claiming he cheated and lied about it.
