defamation of character when person not even named or identified in any way?

[kerket]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I tried contacting the Humane Society over two emaciated cats owned by my neighbor that have been begging me for food for 2 years now and despite me feeding them almost every day last summer, still were down to skin and bones. The Humane Society visited them and told me that the owner said "I fatten them up in the winter and then they tend to fend for themselves in the summer" which I STILL cannot believe was an acceptable excuse to the Humane Society. One of the cats is worse than the other. She digs her way into garbage bags..literally crawling all the way inside, to get scraps. I found her once in a garbage bag just minutes before the garbage truck collected it. Chances are, they would not have known she as in there.

Anyway, after I saw nothing was being done, I started recording my feedings of these cats, along with other strays, and posted them to YouTube. I would tile those videos "Neglected House Cats...." but never giving any identifying information. No names (I don't know their names, although one is a registered sex offender so I could get one) and no addresses. Not even my address. I never show their house in any videos. I never speak in my videos. The only time I have ever narrowed down my location at all was when I mentioned my county when saying that Humane Society did nothing.

To my horror yesterday, I discover that not only did the Humane Society not do anything, but they gave the accused my name and YouTube channel! And they then showed up at my apartment and waited outside my door for me to return home from the store, berating my neighbor. They had my name and YouTube channel which again, could only have been obtained through the Humane Society as I posed a video for them to see how loudly one of the cats was wailing for me to come out and feed it. After harassing me, and the convicted rapist making some veiled threats my way, I closed the door on them and they yelled that they would "see me in court" for defamation of character.

Now, I assume I am pretty well covered by many defenses. I would think my videos would qualify as an opinion and animal neglect is not a serious crime for them to claim any defamation per se since it would in no way hurt them financially (As far as I know, neither of them have jobs, and being a convicted rapist on public record would be more injurious to the one person's reputation than animal neglect.) Not to mention, I have quite a few people would could testify that they have seen the cats, and fell every single vertebrae in their back and every rib in their ribcage protruding their their long fur when petting them, so I think it could quality as being factual, and certainly something that would cause me to post my opinion that they were underfed. Although the accused at likely to feed them well for awhile to make sure they appear healthy (so at least some good came out of this) before/if they ever do try to sue

But I think the biggest defense I have is that absolutely no one watching (my videos get a whopping 30-50 views from maybe 20 different people, none of which are local) would have any way at all of knowing who I was talking about. As I said, no names, addresses, images on the video of them or their house..nothing.

Is there ANY chance that, assuming they aren't bluffing (as I am guessing they ARE) that this could go anywhere?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I tried contacting the Humane Society over two emaciated cats owned by my neighbor that have been begging me for food for 2 years now and despite me feeding them almost every day last summer, still were down to skin and bones. The Humane Society visited them and told me that the owner said "I fatten them up in the winter and then they tend to fend for themselves in the summer" which I STILL cannot believe was an acceptable excuse to the Humane Society. One of the cats is worse than the other. She digs her way into garbage bags..literally crawling all the way inside, to get scraps. I found her once in a garbage bag just minutes before the garbage truck collected it. Chances are, they would not have known she as in there.

Anyway, after I saw nothing was being done, I started recording my feedings of these cats, along with other strays, and posted them to YouTube. I would tile those videos "Neglected House Cats...." but never giving any identifying information. No names (I don't know their names, although one is a registered sex offender so I could get one) and no addresses. Not even my address. I never show their house in any videos. I never speak in my videos. The only time I have ever narrowed down my location at all was when I mentioned my county when saying that Humane Society did nothing.

To my horror yesterday, I discover that not only did the Humane Society not do anything, but they gave the accused my name and YouTube channel! And they then showed up at my apartment and waited outside my door for me to return home from the store, berating my neighbor. They had my name and YouTube channel which again, could only have been obtained through the Humane Society as I posed a video for them to see how loudly one of the cats was wailing for me to come out and feed it. After harassing me, and the convicted rapist making some veiled threats my way, I closed the door on them and they yelled that they would "see me in court" for defamation of character.

Now, I assume I am pretty well covered by many defenses. I would think my videos would qualify as an opinion and animal neglect is not a serious crime for them to claim any defamation per se since it would in no way hurt them financially (As far as I know, neither of them have jobs, and being a convicted rapist on public record would be more injurious to the one person's reputation than animal neglect.) Not to mention, I have quite a few people would could testify that they have seen the cats, and fell every single vertebrae in their back and every rib in their ribcage protruding their their long fur when petting them, so I think it could quality as being factual, and certainly something that would cause me to post my opinion that they were underfed. Although the accused at likely to feed them well for awhile to make sure they appear healthy (so at least some good came out of this) before/if they ever do try to sue

But I think the biggest defense I have is that absolutely no one watching (my videos get a whopping 30-50 views from maybe 20 different people, none of which are local) would have any way at all of knowing who I was talking about. As I said, no names, addresses, images on the video of them or their house..nothing.

Is there ANY chance that, assuming they aren't bluffing (as I am guessing they ARE) that this could go anywhere?

It really has no where to go.

 

[kerket]

It really has no where to go.

I kinda figured that. My only concern is that my city has a notorious ambulance chasing lawyer who likes to take cases no matter what. He's been censured twice (once for coaching a plaintiff to continuing giving answers to his questions that they originally thought was true, but that they came to find out was false..before the trial, so basically telling the plaintiff to commit perjury to help their case), publicly reprimanded many others time, including allegedly for being fall down drunk during trial (at least according to the client who sought his services), almost disbarred, and the circumstance of him getting his law degree were questionable at best given his own felony conviction for selling horses that he didn't actually own. So it wouldn't surprise me if he took the case if they went to him, which everyone with a hopeless case in my city seems to know to do. He is definitely known to be the guy to go to when every other lawyer laughs you out of their office.

 

[NIV]

"Opinion" is not a catch-all defense where all you have to do is say the magic words "in my opinion" before making a defamatory statement. I am not sure of your distinction of the accusation being just of criminality and not a "serious" crime. Accusing someone of running a red light is different from accusing someone of neglecting animals. There have been lots of tests through the years that have been found wanting. A fairly modern one has to do with the crime being one of "moral turpitude" or something that shows the "inherent baseness or vileness of principle in the human heart". Since I don't see a case including animal neglect that is determined to be defamation per se nor that excludes that so don't know what a fact finder would determine. But, I know what I think when I hear of animal neglect and, apparently, what you think of it. If you heard of a person who was convicted of animal neglect, what would you think of him? Would it be a form of social disgrace? (At least, in your group.)

The identification is harder. Someone who has seen/heard the defamation must identify the eventual plaintiff from it. Publication must "of and concern" the plaintiff. The reference does not have to be direct nor does every recipient have to know who it references. So long as there are some who reasonably conclude the publication of and concerns the plaintiff, identification is met. Sometimes, extrinsic facts can make the link--as long as they were known by the person(s) receiving the publication. Does ANYONE know who you were talking about? (Other than potential plaintiff and humane society.)

Truth is always a defense. As to if what you said was "true", I have no opinion.

 

[kerket]

There is absolutely no way anyone would know who I was talking about. For obvious reasons, I don't give out my OWN name or address in my YouTube videos let alone anyone else's. I've never shown the house they live in, nor even say "next door neighbor" and all the videos show basically my back yard or a small alleyway between our houses separated with a fence so no one could even identify it by seeing a known street in the background, so no one would be able to know, unless they are VERY familiar with my property..and no one who watched the videos is from around here. At least not the ones commenting. And again, maybe 20 people actually watch the videos. The only identifying information I gave is once I said it was the BC Humane Society, so they could narrow it does to my county of about 200,000 people. To the only way someone could know who I was talking about, they would have to be VERY familiar with my house, recognize it by the shots of me coming out my door (which is on the opposite side that they are on) or from walking around to the back/side to feed the cats..and THEN they would have to also have seen those cats at the neighbor's house at another time (no from my video) in person and connected the two. And considering just 11% of my total views on my channel are from my home state, that would mean tha on average, 3-5 people from my state watched those videos. So the chances of someone recognizing where I am are minuscule. No...let's just say it. They are zero.

About the serious crime thing, I was talking about that be qualify for defamation per se. I saw on some other site that it has to be a "serious crime" in NY and it even gave an example of what was and wasn't likely to be considered serious, and it sure didn't see like saying they underfed their cats would qualify. (It isn't as if I was claiming they were beating them, or running car fighting rings or anything.) And while that wouldn't mean they can't sue, I would think that would take away the per se standard meaning that these chronically unemployed, under-educated, one a convicted rapist on the public sex offender registry, would actually have to show real financial damages. I am almost certain they are on public assistance since none of them ever leave their house ever. (I didn't even know there was a woman in the house.) Since I doubt a YouTube video showing obviously extremely hungry cats wailing for food and gobbling it down fast when they get it would cause them to lose food stamps, I don't see where they could claim financial harm. And a cable guy once told me their house is like an episode of Hoarders to the point where he refused to come inside for a service call out of fear of his safety. So it isn't as if they are running some successful business out of their home, either.

 

[Zigner]

There is absolutely no way anyone would know who I was talking about.

Yet...they do know.

 

[kerket]

I'll change that to say that the only way anyone could possibly know who I am talking about is if THEY showed it to someone and said something like "Take a look at what this jerk is saying about us." So they only way they would know is if they were the ones revealing their identity. And I would be correct in assume, would I not, that that would not be considered my fault? And the only people that know otherwise (not through the video) all saw the cats themselves and came to the same conclusion on their own. For them, I just said whose cats they were.

 

[Zigner]

I'll change that to say that the only way anyone could possibly know who I am talking about is if THEY showed it to someone and said something like "Take a look at what this jerk is saying about us." So they only way they would know is if they were the ones revealing their identity. And I would be correct in assume, would I not, that that would not be considered my fault.

It could definitely be considered your "fault". You do, of course, have truth as a defense on your side when it comes to defamation claims.

 

[kerket]

It could definitely be considered your "fault". You do, of course, have truth as a defense on your side when it comes to defamation claims.

It could be consider my fault that one of their friends know solely because they showed them the video and said "He is talking about me"? That would be like if they decided to comment on my videos and said "My name is John Smith and my address is ## XXXXXXX St., City, State." and then saying to a judge "Look...now he told everyone who I was!" If they are the ones revealing their identity when no one would be able to know it through my doing, how could I be held liable for it?

I will add that I just realized that I can see location demographics for individual videos. Almost all the videos of their cats have 3 views or less from the state. One is likely me checking from my phone which is logged into a different YouTube account. And since one is probably them, that least MAYBE one (assuming they didn't go back and watch it twice, or that he Humane Society didn't keep checking my channel), it would be really hard to prove that anyone in my entire state, let alone my city saw the videos at all, let alone were able to recognize features of my driveway/backyard to pinpoint where I am and then also be able to have seen those cats walking through the fenced in back yards to the neighbor's house right at the time when the neighbor actually let them in, which is rare.

the "truth" defense would be what I would least likely to be able to use. If they aren't bluffing, surely they are going to keep the cats inside for awhile and fatten them up so they can say "See..they are fine." It has already been awhile since I saw the black cat, which was MUCH worse. And now I assume it is because they found out about my channel a few days ago. So all I would have to "prove" the truth would showing how loud the one cat is when she wants me to feed her and the obvious fact that she REALLY wants food from me when I am bringing it out. But I don't have any real footage of the bones sticking out because the black one is a long haired cat which covers it up. It is only when you pet it and it feels like you are petting a museum dinosaur skeleton that you can tell.

 

[Zigner]

It could be consider my fault that one of their friends know solely because they showed them the video and said "He is talking about me"? That would be like if they decided to comment on my videos and said "My name is John Smith and my address is ## XXXXXXX St., City, State." and then saying to a judge "Look...now he told everyone who I was!" If they are the ones revealing their identity when no one would be able to know it through my doing, how could I be held liable for it?

You'd have to talk to your attorney about that, if it ever gets to that (it won't)

 

[NIV]

I'll change that to say that the only way anyone could possibly know who I am talking about is if THEY showed it to someone and said something like "Take a look at what this jerk is saying about us." So they only way they would know is if they were the ones revealing their identity. And I would be correct in assume, would I not, that that would not be considered my fault.

You may certainly allege that. However, the defamation happened (or not) on publication. Additional publications occur each time someone gets it. There are special rules for internet publication. I believe New York follows the single publication rule where the statute of limitations starts on publication.

Most cases I've seen on the identification issue have to do with the intent of the publisher to refer to the plaintiff. If anyone the plaintiff drags in can reasonably make the link, you have a problem. Since you intended to publish about the potential plaintiff, I don't think you will be successful arguing the publication did not of and concern him. Instead, you might find an absolute privilege from consent of the plaintiff for any publication that reaches another solely because of him directing the person there. The difference is important because of the burdens of proof. First, the plaintiff has to make out a case all the elements are met. Then you try to cause doubt over any of the elements. In this part, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to be successful. After that, your defenses, like absolute privilege are presented. Since you would be claiming the privilege, I believe the burden is on you to prove it.

 

[quincy]

There is a lot that you are saying that does not make sense and you contradict yourself in several places. And there is information provided to you that is incorrect.

Instead of asking for clarification or correcting what has been posted, I am only going to recommend that, if the neighbors file a defamation claim against you over the published videos, hire an attorney well-versed in defamation law to handle the matter.

Even if your videos do not lead to a lawsuit, you should be careful with your speech. In your postings you seem to toss off derogatory/defamatory comments with a reckless abandon.

Good luck.

 

[kerket]

You may certainly allege that. However, the defamation happened (or not) on publication. Additional publications occur each time someone gets it. There are special rules for internet publication. I believe New York follows the single publication rule where the statute of limitations starts on publication.

Most cases I've seen on the identification issue have to do with the intent of the publisher to refer to the plaintiff. If anyone the plaintiff drags in can reasonably make the link, you have a problem. Since you intended to publish about the potential plaintiff, I don't think you will be successful arguing the publication did not of and concern him. Instead, you might find an absolute privilege from consent of the plaintiff for any publication that reaches another solely because of him directing the person there. The difference is important because of the burdens of proof. First, the plaintiff has to make out a case all the elements are met. Then you try to cause doubt over any of the elements. In this part, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to be successful. After that, your defenses, like absolute privilege are presented. Since you would be claiming the privilege, I believe the burden is on you to prove it.

That's just it..my videos don't really say ANYTHING about hem. They are simply titles things like "Neglected House Kitty Begs For Food." They weren't "My Neighbor is Neglecting Their Cats"

And keep in mind that even THEY only know because the Humane Society amazingly gave them my name and YouTube Channel. It isn't even something that they heard about videos being posted and were able to do a search to found it on their own.

The other thing is..since it is no a serious crime I am alleging, (I'm not ever sure it would go so far as to be ANY crime that I am alleging...calling a cat neglected could just mean that I felt they weren't being given enough attention) and therefore they likely can't claimed defamation per se in NY State, and would have to show actual financial harm, wouldn't that negate any chance of them saying "Well...I showed this to my friend so now THEY know." since if they were their friends, it would be hard pressed for them to say that they lost reputation for it. IT seems like if the plaintiff are allowed to tell others to make the connection, it makes the "must be identifiable" part meaningless. ANY plaintiff could simply find someone and say "He is talking about me" to make their case then.

My biggest concern is that we have the quintessential ambulance chasing lawyer in my city. This is a man who someone was granted his law license despite JUST getting out of prison himself for felony fraud (selling horses that he didn't actually own), has been censured at least twice, publicly reprimanded by the judge multiple more times, and almost disbarred at least once after telling his witness to lie on the stand after it was revealed that during the trial, they learned of new information that made their testimony not true, but he told the plaintiff to say what they knew was a lie anyway. His reasoning was "We thought it was true a week ago." He has also showed up in court fall down drunk. So if hey actually went to him (and everyone knows he is the one to go to when every other lawyer laughs you out of their office) he would probably actually take the case.

 

[Zigner]

It's really not us that you (might) need to convince.

 

[quincy]

That's just it..my videos don't really say ANYTHING about hem. They are simply titles things like "Neglected House Kitty Begs For Food." They weren't "My Neighbor is Neglecting Their Cats"

And keep in mind that even THEY only know because the Humane Society amazingly gave them my name and YouTube Channel. It isn't even something that they heard about videos being posted and were able to do a search to found it on their own.

The other thing is..since it is no a serious crime I am alleging, (I'm not ever sure it would go so far as to be ANY crime that I am alleging...calling a cat neglected could just mean that I felt they weren't being given enough attention) and therefore they likely can't claimed defamation per se in NY State, and would have to show actual financial harm, wouldn't that negate any chance of them saying "Well...I showed this to my friend so now THEY know." since if they were their friends, it would be hard pressed for them to say that they lost reputation for it. IT seems like if the plaintiff are allowed to tell others to make the connection, it makes the "must be identifiable" part meaningless. ANY plaintiff could simply find someone and say "He is talking about me" to make their case then.

My biggest concern is that we have the quintessential ambulance chasing lawyer in my city. This is a man who someone was granted his law license despite JUST getting out of prison himself for felony fraud (selling horses that he didn't actually own), has been censured at least twice, publicly reprimanded by the judge multiple more times, and almost disbarred at least once after telling his witness to lie on the stand after it was revealed that during the trial, they learned of new information that made their testimony not true, but he told the plaintiff to say what they knew was a lie anyway. His reasoning was "We thought it was true a week ago." He has also showed up in court fall down drunk. So if hey actually went to him (and everyone knows he is the one to go to when every other lawyer laughs you out of their office) he would probably actually take the case.

First I want to advise you again about your speech. If you are not sued over the videos, speaking to others as you speak here could result in a defamation claim that has merit.

I will also say that the Humane Society adopts out "barn" cats. There are many areas of the country that allow for "regulated" strays - cats that are spayed or neutered left to feed on vermin, with adequate shelter provided in inclement weather.

A barn cat will obviously prefer the easy food given to them by a neighbor rather than working for their food. This can actually be worse for the cat as it becomes dependent on handouts and it can also attract unvaccinated stray cats into an area.

It would be commentary added to your videos that would be most problematic as videos can (and should) be left to speak for themselves. A viewer should be allowed to draw their own conclusions from what has been viewed.

No one here can say whether your neighbors have a suit with merit to pursue against you. We have not seen the videos (and PLEASE do not provide a link because it will be deleted). I worry less, however, about a defamation suit arising from the videos and more about a defamation suit arising from your speech.

Again, see an attorney in your area to help you if you are sued (or if you find yourself served with an harassment complaint).

Good luck.