I believe slander is against the law. If you are being threatened with being outed, if there is no proof, I wonder if you could threaten a slander lawsuit? Just because you may have spoke with or even visited a provider does not mean any laws were broken. What if a neighbor is an ex-con, just talking to that person or going over is not breaking any laws and you should be protected from speculation.
In a previous thread it was discussed that LE used fear of being outed more that the fear of prosecution. Seeing as there may be a client list exposed if a well known provider is convicted, wouldn't it be advantageous for all providers to make sure their client list included the prosecuting attorney, chief of police, mayor, etc... for the cities they operate in? Would they have the audacity to publish their own names? Could they legally exclude them without putting the whole list through a probable cause vetting process?
But cover ups are more difficult to pull off these days.
I believe slander is against the law. If you are being threatened with being outed, if there is no proof, I wonder if you could threaten a slander lawsuit? Just because you may have spoke with or even visited a provider does not mean any laws were broken. What if a neighbor is an ex-con, just talking to that person or going over is not breaking any laws and you should be protected from speculation.
and since we are talking about what is written on some webstie, it is libel, not slander (Review Spiderman.)
But, is it libel, or even defamation (True but done purely to harm one's reputation.) to simply list someone's name, address, etc. on a website with no more said about them?
I doubt if such a case has ever come to light, but who knows, a jury could decide if the intent was to out someone, then I could see damages awarded. The proof of this is a high hurdle even in the best of cases.
(stilll not a lawyer)
good info, thanks. I hope I never have to see a jury for anything!