If a third party lies about an incident, then that third party is to be held responsible for libel, not the person asking concerning the incident.   You are insinuating that I am being slanderous simply for asking about a possible theft in which the first party did, in fact, say a theft of sorts occurred.  Dear me!  If asking about a possible theft when someone has already admitted to it is libel, then I dare to say that the vast majority of the population is in legal trouble!  

-Isabella



> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:52:50 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Concerning Blog Post
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Deb,
> 
> I agree with your interpretation of slander/libel, but let's refer back
> to the original question:
> 
> "So, if you all can help ease my mind and tell me she did actually have
> permission to wear the dresses,that would be awesome"
> 
> I know there does not now appear to be a problem in this instance, but
> imagine, if we may, that a member of this listserv had come back and
> stated they DID have reason to believe that the individual had acted
> without permission - and this later turned out to be untrue. This could
> seriously damage the credibility of the person concerned, and I believe
> they would then have just cause to object! Also, what is not intended as
> being "harsh" to one person, may seem so to another: this is not a good
> place to go!
> 
> Of course museum professionals have a legitimate concern about unethical
> and potential suspicious activities and I would support any kind of
> general discussion on this in open forum, and much of the useful debate
> in this thread has been on that basis. What I am not comfortable with is
> this kind discussion about named individuals. Let's forget the
> slander/liable angle: let's concentrate on the ethical angle. As you
> indeed go on to say yourself, "Posting something unwise can be used
> against you.... Even if you mean no harm, other people might not see it
> that way. It pays to take a little extra
> time to think about what you post". I agree with you!
> 
> I'll back off this particular aspect of the discussion as I think we
> have covered it and members of the listserv can form their own views.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jerry 
> 
> 
>     
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Deb Fuller
> Sent: 26 February 2011 13:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Concerning Blog Post
> 
> `On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:35 AM, jerry.symonds
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > With regards to "liable; seriously?" : yes, actually!
> 
> Libel - not even, really! To be either libel or slander, the first two
> criteria that must be met are: untrue statements and defamatory
> language. In other words, not only must you say something that isn't
> true, you have to be pretty harsh with your statements. Then you also
> have to prove that the statements did harm. Calling attention to a
> suspicious blog post is neither defamatory nor untrue. Questioning the
> legality and the propriety of said blog is also neither defamatory nor
> harmful. Museum professionals had a legitimate concern about an
> unethical and potentially suspicious activity that was publicly
> displayed on a blog. The discussion was civil and professional and out
> of concern for the potential artifacts.
> 
> The lesson here is that if it's on the Internet, it can be searched
> and found. I can find posts of mine from the Usenet over 15 years ago.
> Posting something unwise can be used against you. It is not libel but
> your own misjudgment coming back to at you. Even if you mean no harm,
> other people might not see it that way. It pays to take a little extra
> time to think about what you post. I think the blogger learned a harsh
> lesson about both museum collections and blogging. I do hope she
> continues with her creative writing work and artistic expression in a
> lesson contentious manner or at least learns to write large
> disclaimers on her posts.
> 
> Deb Fuller
> 
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
> 
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
> information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
> message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should
> read "help" (without the quotes).
> 
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message
> to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
> "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
> 
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
> 
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
> 
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
 		 	   		  
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).