cjh@csin.UUCP (Chip Hitchcock) (08/08/83)
In response to your message of Sat Aug 6 16:08:58 1983: I'm not sure where (geographically) you(Gordon)r information comes from, but it happens that both the lawyers in NESFA were at one of our meetings recently and concluded (having had to deal with the problem) that truth is a defense (at least in Massachusetts) unless the plaintiff can prove malice. For instance, you happen to have proof that A, whom you are known to dislike, once committed B (where B is anything not affecting his competence or trustworthiness in C--e.g. B is pederasty and C is programming not at a school). If you say this to D, who is interviewing A for a job of type C, you can be in trouble \\if// A doesn't get the job (if he does get the job, damage would be very hard to prove). Of course, our circumstances are a bit more touchy; your working for a rival company is likely to make it harder for judge or jury to believe that your denigration was not malicious (for purposes of debate, "malice" can be defined as being more interested in hurting A than protecting D; this is one of the reasons why advertisers used to be very careful about comparing their product with another name rather than brand X).