I gather that this case filed in Colorado by Giduck has been dismissed.
"...The law has long recognized the tension between the law of defamation and basic guarantees of free expression. Thus, for example, even patently defamatory statements concerning public officials and public figures are privileged under the First Amendment unless
they are accompanied by “actual malice” defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 370 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964);
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967).
It is this tension that has generated numerous cases addressing the first element of a defamation action, i.e. is the statement defamatory. Not every untrue, uncomplimentary or offensive statement concerning an individual is defamatory. Indeed, the law is settled in
Colorado that the “mere use of foul, abusive, or vituperative language does not constitute defamation.” 7A Colo. Prac., Personal Injury Torts and Insurance § 32.2 (2d ed.), citing Bucher v. Roberts, 198 Colo. 1, 595 P.2d 239 (1979). Expressions of opinion, as distinguished from assertions of fact, are generally not actionable since “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 784 (1974). Such statements may be (and in practice almost always are) constitutionally privileged in order to safeguard the vigor and candor of public discourse. “Weighed against the individual’s right to be free from false and defamatory assertions . . . is society’s interest in encouraging and fostering vigorous public debate.” Keohane v. Stewart, 882 P.2d 1293. 1298..."
I also gather that Giduck is responsible for the legal fees of the many SOC people that he sued.
Hock
Author
Topic: The Strange case of John Giduck (Read 6907 times)