Grain of truth, barrel of lies

[lowens1975]

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

A relative of mine posted a statement on her Facebook page that I am concerned about. She was, in the context of the whole conversation, making reference to another relative.

She stated: "Are you kidding me she was in the crazy house 3 times and then some! I'm ready for her crazy *ss tho!" Verbatim, bad punctuation and all.

The relative she is referring to checked herself into a facility (psych) for observation and was released. This was over 25 years ago and only once.

So the statement she made has only a minute grain of truth, and the rest is exaggerated.

Would this be sufficient grounds for a libel suit?

 

[Proserpina]

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

A relative of mine posted a statement on her Facebook page that I am concerned about. She was, in the context of the whole conversation, making reference to another relative.

She stated: "Are you kidding me she was in the crazy house 3 times and then some! I'm ready for her crazy *ss tho!" Verbatim, bad punctuation and all.

The relative she is referring to checked herself into a facility (psych) for observation and was released. This was over 25 years ago and only once.

So the statement she made has only a minute grain of truth, and the rest is exaggerated.

Would this be sufficient grounds for a libel suit?

How has the person been damaged?

Defamation suits are very costly to pursue in terms of both time and cost - think $30k, if cheap, and 3 years, if quick.

 

[Antigone*]

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

A relative of mine posted a statement on her Facebook page that I am concerned about. She was, in the context of the whole conversation, making reference to another relative.

She stated: "Are you kidding me she was in the crazy house 3 times and then some! I'm ready for her crazy *ss tho!" Verbatim, bad punctuation and all.

The relative she is referring to checked herself into a facility (psych) for observation and was released. This was over 25 years ago and only once.

So the statement she made has only a minute grain of truth, and the rest is exaggerated.

Would this be sufficient grounds for a libel suit?

You're really going to care what some blithering idiot posts on her Facebook page, come on. Find something important to worry about.

 

[lowens1975]

Actually, what I was looking for was a 'legal' perspective and not a 'personal' one, but thank you for your time.

You're really going to care what some blithering idiot posts on her Facebook page, come on. Find something important to worry about.

 

[Antigone*]

Actually, what I was looking for was a 'legal' perspective and not a 'personal' one, but thank you for your time.

Pro gave you what you were initially looking for. What I added was the cherry on top. You're welcome

 

[Proserpina]

I'd like to elaborate a little for OP's sake, and for anyone else reading.

There is a most excellent website dealing with Florida defamation law (it's actually a wonderful site dealing with lots of topics -please note I'm not affiliated or connected to that site in any way shape or form. I just like learning stuff!).

Florida Defamation Law | Citizen Media Law Project


From the site:

In Florida, a statement amounts to defamation per se if it accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime or imputes to the plaintiff conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his or her lawful business, trade, profession, or office.

What has been described does not seem to fit into the category of defamation per se, so OP would then have to look at actual tangible damages the OP's relative has sustained by what was written on the social networking site.

OP also needs to consider that to win a defamation suit the plaintiff would usually need to prove that the defendant knew what s/he said was false. Simply being misinformed, or misunderstanding the situation, does not generally meet that criteria. Also the statement must be believable; I honestly don't feel that calling someone crazy fits into that category at all (and not just because it happens to me on a daily basis!).

Finally, the social networking sites are rife with hyperbole and reactionary nonsense. The courts are well aware of this.

Now, while making a website calling OP's relative a convicted child molester would absolutely support an action, what OP has written is highly unlikely anywhere near enough to support any defamation action unless again damages can be proven.