can a false charge of homosexuality lead to a defamation lawsuit?

[S K]

All those folk who said in writing that the Paul Pelosi brouhaha was a gay tryst gone wrong, can they be sued?

[Barry Gold]

On 11/5/2022 8:54 PM, S K wrote:
> All those folk who said in writing that the Paul Pelosi brouhaha was a gay tryst gone wrong, can they be sued?

60 years ago that would have been cause for a libel suit. In fact, it
would have been libel per se, because homosexual sex was a crime, "Sodomy".

Nowadays, I doubt you could prove any damages from such an accusation,
and it's certainly not libel per se(*).

(*) In which you don't have to prove damages, they are assumed.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

[Elle N]

My take:
Mr. Pelosi could sue for defamation (or even defamation per se)
but would not be likely to prevail. Why? Because proving one is
not gay is a high standard to meet; because the Pelosis likely
feel that being called "gay" is not derisive and so might laugh
at the suggestion he is gay and then, not sue; because Mr. Pelosi
is likely, by one standard or another, a public figure and so the bar he
would have to meet to prove defamation is higher than if he were not
a public figure.

A little help from California law (if Mr. Pelosi sued in California):
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1700/

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

The accusation that he is gay is not the primary grounds for a
defamation suit. That includes the accusation that he would cheat on
his wife, the accusation that he actually knew the attacker and had
something to do with the reason he was attacked, and that the attack
was not at all based on anything political, those are the things
that, to me, make it defamation.

And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it was
based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me that
should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
significant punitive damages.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

On 11/6/2022 9:17 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
> And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it was
> based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
> election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me that
> should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
> significant punitive damages.

No. Statements made for the purpose of winning an election are political
speech, and that can never be the basis for damages in a defamation
suit. You need to prove that you lost (or failed to get) a job, a
promotion, that you lost sales, some actual monetary loss.

Or you could go for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional
distress, but I doubt that Mr. Pelosi was distressed about something
like that. More like, "You've got to be kidding". Maybe he could sue for
injuries sustained while rolling around on the floor laughing so hard he
strained his diaphragm.

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 6 Nov 2022 09:17:40 -0800 (PST),

And, assuming what I'm sure is true, that Mr. Pelosi is awake, and
assuming he signed a complaint or statement to the police, which seems
very likely since so many details are known now, the accusastion also
includes that he has filed a false police report, and that is a crime.

Therefore, libel per se.

I suspect he has better things to do with his time, but I wish he would
do it.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

[Stuart O. Bronstein]

Barry Gold <bg...@labcats.org> wrote:
> Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

>> And the reason for the accusations was not just idle talk - it
>> was based on the intention and had the purpose of influencing an
>> election. I'm not a defamation specialist, but it seems to me
>> that should be sufficient to win at least nominal damages if not
>> significant punitive damages.
>
> No. Statements made for the purpose of winning an election are
> political speech, and that can never be the basis for damages in a
> defamation suit. You need to prove that you lost (or failed to
> get) a job, a promotion, that you lost sales, some actual monetary
> loss.

Knowingly making a defamatory statement about someone is not
privileged just because it's said as a part of an election campaign.
You're right, the real issue is damages. And on occasion courts do
issue judgments for nominal damages (e.g. $1) when financial damages
can't be determine.

> Or you could go for intentional or negligent infliction of
> emotional distress, but I doubt that Mr. Pelosi was distressed
> about something like that. More like, "You've got to be kidding".
> Maybe he could sue for injuries sustained while rolling around on
> the floor laughing so hard he strained his diaphragm.

The distress doesn't come from how the victim feels about the
particular accusation. It comes from having millions of people
actually thinking he'd cheat on his wife with a gay lover.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Barry Gold]

Have you ever heard of the term "turnip"?

[micky]

In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 7 Nov 2022 07:34:26 -0800 (PST), Barry

Not in this context, no.

[Barry Gold]

On 11/7/2022 8:29 PM, micky wrote:
>> Have you ever heard of the term "turnip"?
> Not in this context, no.

As in "You can't get blood from a turnip". Somebody who has no salable
assets and either no traceable income or only retirement income (usually
exempt from attachment).

Also:
* homeless people
* someone who is living with their parents and supported by them