I answered the question. If you don't like my answer, ask around and see if you can get a different answer. Or talk to the legislature.

I was going to try to explain the MSJ issue until I found out I have an "irrational perspective"

I am curious though. Since, I seemed to disagree, does that mean that I am now a wayward as well?

Well, I have asked around, and I have got a different answer. I haven't had any answers from lawyers that support your position.

I don't understand how someone could succeed on the grounds that you cited. This is partly because I don't know what they all mean!

Can we start with the first one cited? Could you (or anyone) tell me how someone could succeed with a defamation claim, if the person who exposed (the BS) has proof of the affair?

The term defamation of character is often used to describe accusations of slander, libel or both. Slander involves verbal derogatory statements, while libel involves written ones. In a court of law, the plaintiff pursuing the lawsuit would charge defamation of character to cover any form of false or damaging allegations.

Defamation of character is notoriously difficult to prove in court, although the actual effects can be quite evident and damaging. If a disgruntled customer of a restaurant tells numerous people that the head chef has AIDS, for example, sales for that restaurant could fall and the employee might lose his job or find it difficult to work. Because the customer's slanderous statement concerns a specific person and an unproven accusation, the chef may have a legitimate case of defamation of character.

The main problem with proving defamation of character is the protection of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Courts generally agree that an opinion, no matter how malicious, is not the same as a stated fact. If the disgruntled customer had said "Don't eat at Joe's Cafe. I think the food is lousy and the chef is sick," then defamation of character would be difficult to prove. Other people can still form different opinions. Once the customer said "Don't eat at Joe's Cafe. I know the chef and he has AIDS," then a statement of fact has occurred and a claim of defamation of character can be pursued.

Another problem concerning defamation of character is the actual truth of the statement. Some may argue that in order for defamation of character to occur, the alleged victim actually has to have character to defame in the first place. Calling a known neighborhood bully a 'thug' in the local paper wouldn't qualify as defamation of character, because it isn't a statement against fact. The truth is, the truthfulness of the statement isn't always a factor in actual court proceedings. In our hypothetical case, the court would assume the chef does not in fact have AIDS and the defendant knew this at the time the statements were made.

Very few defamation of character lawsuits actually reach the level of a court trial. Many are settled privately, in order to avoid even more damage from publicity. Since actual damages must be demonstrated, some cases are dismissed because the statements or accusations do not rise to the level of actual slander or libel. Hurt feelings or a loss of social standing may not reach the legal definition of damages. What few defamation of character cases do reach the court system are usually local in nature, such as a city councilman suing his local newspaper for implying he accepted a bribe.

In our case of the chef and the disgruntled customer, damages could most likely be demonstrated by restaurant sales records and testimony from other customers who heard the slanderous statements firsthand. Even if medical tests revealed that the chef did indeed have a medical condition, that fact alone would not mitigate the customer's obvious malicious intent. The customer was not working in the public's best interest at the time. Under these circumstances, the court would most likely find in favor of the plaintiff and order the defendant to pay punitive damages.

Well, I have asked around, and I have got a different answer. I haven't had any answers from lawyers that support your position.

I don't understand how someone could succeed on the grounds that you cited. This is partly because I don't know what they all mean!

Can we start with the first one cited? Could you (or anyone) tell me how someone could succeed with a defamation claim, if the person who exposed (the BS) has proof of the affair?

DH has pointed out before that sometimes my brain goes from A - R in .02 seconds, SuzieQ. I read a thread and the first thing that came to my mind was a wall post and possible stress for the BS. The sad thing is, an unrepentant active wayward often knows no bounds when it comes to hurtful and self-serving behavior. I can't go into stuff, but I am aware of something right now in someone's life that is FB centered and very ugly. So that was what came to mind when I read the OP on that thread.

I know that I am not longer wayward, just like I know I am mentally stable and that my two children are in fact my DH's (that still chaps my hide)....I just hate feeling like I am defined by something I no longer am. I understand it, but I don't like it. And I don't think you were doing that. I've never seen you wield that weapon.

Control the stigma - make it your strength

It seems to me that the reaction of the exposed AP is the greater legal risk. My concern has been that if the AP's employment is compromised as a result of exposure, the AP would have actual, liquidated damages, damages being, as you know, the hardest element to prove in these kinds of cases. Once there are actuals, exemplary damages are on the table.

I'm an objective, trained trial lawyer, I see that implementation of the concept MAY raise legally viable claims. My "irrational perspective" is that the tort law may allow for a remedy.

Off the top of my head: defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent representation, & tortious interference with contract.

It seems to me that the reaction of the exposed AP is the greater legal risk. My concern has been that if the AP's employment is compromised as a result of exposure, the AP would have actual, liquidated damages, damages being, as you know, the hardest element to prove in these kinds of cases. Once there are actuals, exemplary damages are on the table.

Mr. W, my concern on exposure has been primarily related to the AP rather than the unfaithful spouse's reaction.

defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent representation, & tortious interference with contract.

markos, I love the first amendment as well, but I have learned that sometimes the same people who herald it will squash it like a bug when it makes them uncomfortable.

The fact a wayward spouse may THREATEN you with lawsuits could also be considered "extortion"...wherein he/she is trying to coerce you into not exercising your legal first amendment rights to say whatever truthful thing you want to to anyone you want about your life by threatening legal action against you.

Having a good counter-claim helps so pay attention when your wayward spouse threatens you....If they say or more particularly write (by email)... "If you don't stop telling everyone...I'm going to sue you". That COULD BE considered extortion.

markos, I love the first amendment as well, but I have learned that sometimes the same people who herald it will squash it like a bug when it makes them uncomfortable.