If a third party is knowlegable about newly established facts about a
person, but ignores them, and promulgates in public, information
contrary to those facts, has that person violated any law concerning
that 'established " fact?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pinkfreud-ga on 09 Aug 2002 01:04 PDT

Is the information that is being promulgated in public libelous or
defamatory? Could it be expected to damage the reputation of the
person who is being spoken of?

---

Request for Question Clarification by answerfinder-ga on 09 Aug 2002 01:34 PDT

Also, in which country is this occurring?
answer-finder-ga

---

Clarification of Question by kdmac6-ga on 12 Aug 2002 12:48 PDT

I wrote a paper six months ago in which I discovered never-before
facts about Nietzsche and Plato. It would effectively "finish" N. It
was the worst case of plagiarism in history.  I was not published, but
not refuted.  The Journals said they could "not publish that kind of
paper."  But I did send it to one professor and put it on the internet
and registered it with the Library of Congress.  Now this Professor is
planning a presentation on this exact subject(I dont know which side
he will take)at a Sept conferrence in London.  In either case it seems
the facts of my paper are at stake.  Is there anything going on here?
Dave McGuire

Just guessing by the tone of the question I suspect that the client is
asking about whether they or someone they wish to disclose information
about has legal recourse.

I only know about U.S. laws regarding libel and slander but I can say
that, in general, truth is considered the perfect defense, although it
could cost you a lot of money and court time.

Also, different rules apply to journalists (such as the “absence of
malice” doctrine) and to “public figures.”

There's also a saying with some considerable legal force in the U.S.
that you can't libel the dead.

There's also the saying that you can sue over anything.

At least in the USA, different rules don't apply to journalists.  They
are subject to the same restrictions and rights as everyone else.  The
"absense of malice" doctrine is a defense of sorts to a libel action
as it applies to public figures, but it is available not just to
journalists.

IANAL, and all, etc. 

But I'd argue if the paper is on facts dealing with two very deceased
public figures (I'd argue philosophers would qualify as public figures
in this case)  that your chance of being held liable for defamation 
of any kind is pretty slim.