Defamation lawsuit - Bob Truman

Defamation lawsuit news

I'm proceeding with a defamation lawsuit against an internet blogger who has published untrue statements about me. This page will be updated with news about my lawsuit, and others who are suing for defamation.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc.

Feb 2, 2012

Here is an ongoing case which parallels what I am doing. It illustrates the procedure in bringing someone to justice

Golfer Phil Mickelson fed up with person posting "absolutely untrue" statement

"In other words, Phil wants to find out who is behind these libelous attacks and sue the crap out of them."

This case could certainly have far-reaching implications regarding the anonymity of internet posting and the privacy of individuals who post statements online.

Calgary Herald: Golfer Phil Mickelson wins lawsuit to reveal identity of online vicious commenter

Phil Mickelson files defamation lawsuit

Comments from other bloggers

"Personally, I think this is great news and hopefully brings accountability to the actions of some people. ...if someone is going to say something about a real person in the public domain, they should back it up with their real identity."

"if you dish it out, you better be able to take it. If anyone wants to play that game and make what appears to be libelous and defamatory posts, they should at least man-up (or be made to) and support their statements or beliefs with facts, whether it's in the court of public opinion or a court of civil justice. Why should anecdotally based statements be regarded as truth unless they are required to be made so, or not? Either way they are damaging, but at least one is justified. In conventional printed media the reporters are (morally or professionally) required to check their sources as reliable and factual or retract. Why should the internet be any different? If it can't be "self-policing" because of individual moral ntegrity of the posters, then it should fall on the traditional measures of our legal system to do so."