It is my opinion that you cannot defame a person by telling the truth. This, like libel, is simply a way to try to use a hammer.
"You can't libel garbage by saying it stinks."
Simply using newspaper archives does not constitute original research. So there must be more to your story than is apparent.
Will
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)
2009/4/24 WJhonson@aol.com:
It is my opinion that you cannot defame a person by telling the truth. This, like libel, is simply a way to try to use a hammer.
"You can't libel garbage by saying it stinks."
Simply using newspaper archives does not constitute original research. So there must be more to your story than is apparent.
I believe Erwin James had chosen to remain pseudonymous. The users of the message board had used newspaper archives to identify someone who had been in the French Foreign Legion and who had been imprisoned in the year that Erwin James had. At the time, the basis of identifying him was putting known facts about the pseudonymous author (date of imprisonment, French Foreign Legion membership), against an old newspaper article containing similar details about a named man who had committed a crime. Since no independent connection had been made between the pseudonym and his legal name, it did constitute original research. It is only now that Erwin James has identified himself in a national newspaper that it no longer constitutes original research.
If the message board users had made a misidentification, which was possible, it would have been defamatory. In my original post, perhaps I should have said "possible defamation". Several of the guesses made on the board about the crimes of the pseudonymous author, prior to him being identified, are untrue and may constitute libel. If these had been added to the article, it would have been defamatory.
Apologies if I wasn't initially clear about the circumstances.