Um, yes and no. Truth is an absolute defense against libel, but it's not necessarily a defense against other tort claims like defamation of character. I believe (and perhaps some lawyer will correct me if I'm wrong) if his second-hand accusations can be shown to be the product of malice and he made them without himself knowing what the truth was, he can still be guilty of defamation of character, especially in a case where a criminal act is alleged but not proven in court.Animavore wrote:No, I mean if it now goes to court and turns out to be true then it's not libel. Isn't it?Seth wrote:No, it would have to be libel to be sustained, he can be sued for just about anything, including defamation of character, which is probably more likely, given the circumstances.Animavore wrote:It would have to actually be libel for him to be sued it though.
We'll see.
It's worth noting that repeating a libel is still libel.
For example, (hypothetically speaking) if one says "OJ is guilty of murdering his wife" that's defamation of character because he's been acquitted of that crime and is therefore not guilty. Doesn't matter if he actually did it or not.