Can I be sued for telling the truth?

[MelancholyBliss]

There's a senator hoping for re-election on Guam this year. A few years ago he developed a cyst on his back that he decided to ignore, mostly because he couldn't drag his lazy ass to apply for insurance, let alone see a doctor about it. It continued to develop into full blown skin cancer and even as it progressed, he took no action. Finally, he went into septic shock and had a massive stroke. One of his colleagues belongs to a family that owns an insurance company and they fixed it quickly so that insurance that was bought after the fact was still applied to his hospitilization. He was then medevaced off island for treatment. Because of his stroke, he's still partially paralyzed in the upper right part of his body. He cannot talk. And his brain is not functioning fully (his memory is shot, he is incapable of making simple decisions, let alone important ones that affect a whole island).

I don't know how this has all escaped the rumor mills on Guam, but people don't know his condition. Yes, a lot of people don't know that he can't even talk. They think he had cancer and it was treated and now he's just a little sick but will recover. He won't recover. Even if there was hope for him to recover, he won't go to therapy. Again, he's a lazy fuck.

He's been a senator for years. A lot of people may vote for him because they know his name. During this last term, before his stroke, he was the speaker of the house.

The fact of the matter is he cannot do his job. This isn't about the rights of the disabled. A man who is blind cannot pilot a plane. A man who has lost close to everything that allows him to function as a person who is part of overseeing laws and regulations for an island should not be put in that position.

It's not libel or defamation or slander if I tell people what happened as it is all truth. So can any kind of action be brought against me if I happen to publish the truth in hopes of getting people to not vote for him?

And yes, I absolutely have a personal vendetta against him. He doesn't have love for anything but his career. Take that away from him and he's a broken man with nothing to live for and that's exactly what he deserves.

[snooze]

There should be no reason you can't legally express that opinion. He could be in no position to deny anything you say unless he resorted to lying or omission. "I will not be voting for him because I doubt his decision-making capabilities due to the stroke he suffered having affected his rational thoughts etc.."

[Gene]

If you're worried, I'd advise doing what Deep Throat did - provide the story to a newspaper under an alias. Don't use your own phone. I don't think it's illegal if he actually does have the problems, though of course he could bring about a defamation case if it turns out to be lies. But you're not lying, are you? So I think it's in the interests of Guam as a nation that you go about with this.

Ooh. I suddenly thought about Jack Bauer for a second there.

[MelancholyBliss]

No. I'm absolutely not lying. I think he's going for the sympathy vote. I'm not sure even his staff knows exactly what happened. Being on extended medical leave due to "recovering from cancer", he has avoided face time. He's not even active as a senator now.

Despite personal feelings I still don't think he should have a seat for a position for which he cannot fulfill his duties properly. We have enough fucked up people in the government as it is.

Also, our newspaper won't print anything that doesn't have a name and contact info attached to it and they always call to confirm information. In order to send something in without my name I'd have to put together a "don't vote for so and so" committee and pay for a large ad. And then it would be moot anyway since they can find out who I am.

I can always call into talk radio...

ETA When my dad was very ill and not "all there" he called into a radio, telling people who he was and accused this senator of murder. He didn't do anything about it. When a reporter asked the senator about what his brother said, he deflected it and said he wouldn't be answering any questions about it. Now that the senator is sick and still utterly lazy, maybe he wouldn't feel the need to take action even if he could.

Oh, yeah. Did I forget to mention that? The senator is my uncle - my dad's older brother. The name helped me out a lot, got me out of tickets, got me into special events without an invite, etc. But I don't carry my maiden name anymore so he serves no purpose for me.

Without going into a long story, he's the reason we aren't a family anymore. He screwed my mom out of money and we're really paying for it now. And even after that, my mom still wanted to be family because that's really important to her. When someone called us the day the ambulance took him away, my mom went to check on him immediately. She cried for him. She went to visit his wife in the hospital to make sure she was okay. After everything he did, my mom still has love for him. I should probably take a lesson from her but no, you screw with my mom, you screw with me and I don't forgive that. If we lose the house - the house she shared with my dad, the house I grew up in, one of the few physical connections my mom has to my dad - due to financial troubles, I swear I will raise hell.

So yeah, personal vendetta. But that doesn't change the fact that he is incapable of doing the job he's running for. He still shouldn't be elected as senator next term.

[not_your_pixie]

I am not sure if you can be sued, but if you were a "representative" for the family and went to the press to explain the situation and what happened, I think that you should. That man obviously shouldnt have been there in the first place, and definitely should not (and can not) do the job now. It is the interest of the people that he not be elected again. I think that alone is worth the risk of being sued. Hope someone can help you more.

[Orion283]

To my knowledge you're in the clear so long as what's posted is just the bare reputable facts without bias embellishment or ego. It sounds like you personally dislike this guy so I would take great care to not let any personal feelings get into the article. Keep it brief and to the point.

Tangentially, how do folks get away with those campaigning smear ads anyway? "My opponent voted No on proposition #3263827... clearly he hates America! And puppies! And he's coming to your house right now to set fire to your American flag right now with a puppy that is also on fire!!" They just go on and on with how they're shining paragons of truth and justice and their opponent in the race may secretly be Cobra Commander, and nobody bats an eye.

[Dwiesel McAllister]

I don't know how the laws work in Guam, but you shouldn't be sued for telling the truth. You should bring this forth for the benefit of you, your kids, and for all of Guam. People like that shouldn't be in office, anyway.

[MelancholyBliss]

The laws on Guam should be the same as anywhere in the states. And we don't get as many lawsuits on Guam. People are too lazy to be bothered. :D

The only people who seem to get sued are the people IN the government.

[Dwiesel McAllister]

You should bring it forth, then. If you don't feel comfortable, then use an alias like Gene suggested. Regardless, this guy needs to be exposed.

[LadyAbby]

As a journalism student, here's what I advise you to do. (I've had courses in media law, media ethics and in journalism procedures). First, you can't be sued if you tell exactly the truth. No embellishments, no bias, no angles, simply the 'truth'.

Go to the most reputable paper or news television station you can. If people have 'issues' with it, (like Fox's political bias, like stations with a reputation for unethical procedures, etc) stay away. Find the most reputable paper you can. Then talk to their news department about what you're telling us. Tell them you have an idea for an investigative news story for them.

You can tell them he's your uncle, but ask to be 'on background'. This is a form of attribution that means that they can use what information you give them but that your name remains anonymous and they can't quote you, they can only use the information. They must refer to you as 'a member of Senator's family revealed...'

Tell them he suffered a stroke and refused medical attention and his condition worsened and he's now got medical conditions as a result of this. He's paralyzed and incapable of normal speech. Leave out the 'question' of his decision making abilities. Even if it's 'fact' that his brain is impaired, bringing that up will lend towards making it sound like you question his decision making abilities. You don't want them to be able to attribute anything to you that makes it seem like a personal attack, but rather something you felt was your duty to the voting public.

Then bring up the idea of doing investigation into whether he's capable of good decision making and looking into that.

Finally, be prepared to be asked *why* you're doing this. Don't give them any information on that though, other than you feel that his medical history and decision making ought to be looked into and given to the public to evaluate if they want him to remain in office.

Hope this helps, MBliss.

[MelancholyBliss]

That's another problem. We have two newpapers. One is the main one, the other doesn't get read by most people. The main newspaper has obvious political bias. Our news stations do as well. We got one large, rich, influential family that is tied in to most media here, the same family that gave my uncle his after the fact insurance. Of that family, one is senator and my uncle's closest ally. In fact, they were supposed to run together as Governor and Lt. Governor next term.

I think my only hope is that one station that my dad called into. They are famous for talkng about controversial stuff and the journalists there are hardcore. And lots and lots of old people listen to that show.

[LadyAbby]

You have to go to the most reputable place that's willing to hear your story pitch. A newspaper is better because it can be looked at/read over and over but after that, a tv news station is best because people can *see* what's going on and plus, most older folks turn on the evening news in the evenings, there's only a few stations to watch after all but with radio, the problem becomes that a majority of people aren't tuning to that particular station at a particular time of day to catch 'news' (unless its in their morning commute) and even then it might not generate enough buzz to get around well enough to *really* be taken seriously.
(...says the girl who wants to work in radio...)

Edit: Ohhh you said lots of people listen to that station...that *might* work. But you have to either set up an interview or go into the station. You can't just call this in.

[MelancholyBliss]

This particular show usually only takes calls unless the person being interviewed is an established public figure or celebrity. But their calls have been know to last for half an hour or longer with many people calling to talk about politics. And then they'll discuss the particular topic ad nauseum. with news like this, they'd run it for a long time too. They'll bring it up, have people call in to comment, call the original person up and expand on it. I actually don't care much for the journalists there. But the very reason I don't like them may mean that they are the best people to go to. They are way cut throat and salivate at the prospect of a politician being called out.

And yeah, this show gets a lot of exposure. There is really no other form of media on Guam that is both unbiased and reaches a lot of people. People have been fired from the newspaper and two new shows for innocent remarks that have been attributed to badmouthing political candidates that were connected to the producers running the whole show.

What's funny is that Guam is largely democrat. We had the primaries this weekend and all republican senators are going straight to the general election because there were so little of them. The only reason people voted in the primaries was to decide which democratic candidates would go on to the general. The democrats will obviously have the majority. And then the one family controlling most of the media here is uber Republican.