Zong wrote:I believe the burden of proof would fall on the plaintiff.
It sure does! There are three elements to proving libel:
1. That the defendant published a written claim. Spoken statements or private communications between two individuals can't be libel.
2. That the claim was defamatory. If the statement could not reasonably harm the plaintiff's reputation then it isn't libel.
3. That the claim made a false statement of fact. No matter how defamatory, opinions are not libel.
Each of these elements must be proven by "preponderance of the evidence." That's a fancy way of saying that the plaintiff must demonstrate that each element is more likely to be true than false. The more stringent requirement of "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply to libel -- that's used for criminal cases like murder, something Matron De Winter is presumably only guilty of in-game.
To better illustrate the situation, let me offer some examples of similar things Matron De Winter could have done which would not have been libel:
"Wil is a real sleazebag. You shouldn't trust him."
This is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. Opinions can't be libel.
"Wil has a purple polka-dotted nose."
Although this is a false statement of fact, it doesn't reasonably create a negative impact on my reputation. It isn't defamatory, so it isn't libel.
In a PM to his Chumbucket & Associates guildmate Populus: "Wil is a real sleeze. He scammed that guy." Although this is defamatory and a false statement of fact, a private communication where the writer controls who can read it is not libel.
"Wil gouged LotharTheGreat - 3 deeds for a small house!"
Gouged is a statement of opinion. And it's true that I sold a small house near the humility shrine to LotharTheGreat for three deeds. Opinion isn't libel. Truth isn't libel.
So, let's look at the elements of libel:
1. Published written claim. This is established prima facie, which is a fancy way of say "the claim is obviously true on its face." Matron De Winter wrote his statement in a public forum where it was expected to be read by many people.
2. Defamatory. Again, prima facie. "Wil is a known scammer. His guildmates give him forum rep so you will be tricked into trusting him." There simply isn't a credible interpretation of that statement where it isn't explicitly targeted at damaging my reputation.
3. False statement of fact. 3a, is it a statement of fact? 3b. Is it false?
3a. Known scammer. Statement of fact. His guildmates give him forum rep. Statement of fact.
3b. His guildmates give him forum rep. This is trivially proven false: I'm not in a guild and don't have any guildmates. Any game admin can confirm. Moreover, if you look through my forum rep chronologically prior to Matron De Winter and link back to the posts they were for, the rep marks are clearly appropriate to the forum posts -- unlike the pattern you'd expect from false repping. So, this portion of the statement is proven false.
Known scammer. Indeed Populus clarified that I allegedly "Collaborated with the scammer who scammed death12 out of 3 castle deeds." This is almost amusing. Populus and Matron De Winter are in cA, the guild of tricksters and thieves. Link this thread here:
viewtopic.php?p=460652
In the thread, you'll discover that dealth12 was in fact scammed out of 3 castle deeds. By Matron De Winter! PM death12, he'll confirm it for you. What chutzpah! The first offer of supposed evidence was something the claimant himself appears to have done.
More, look at the timing of Matron De Winter's claim and the posts they attach to. Refer to my first message for the links. It's obvious that true or false, the claim was retaliatory. Not a circumstance in which the guy making the statement can be expected to deliver flawless truth.
Finally, consider the source. Matron De Winter is in cA, the guild of tricksters and thieves. Oh, and "bards." Self-published tales of their exploits are all over this forum. For example, look at Matron De Winter's acknowledged role in blackmailing Hemperor during the so-called "Operation Red Hemperor". Brilliant in its audacity, but not exactly the behavior of an honest guy.
Published written claim: proven.
Defamatory: proven.
False statement of fact: proven.
Hence libel: proven.
Regards,
Wil
