[pct-l] Hiker rescued near Snow Creek/Fuller Ridge was

[greg mushial]

> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 15:19:17 -0700
> From: "Bob Bankhead" <wandering_bob at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Hiker rescued near Snow Creek/Fuller Ridge was
> NOT dehydrated
> To: "'Guthrie Nutter'" <guthrie.nutter at gmail.com>, "'Melissa
> Rexilius'" <melissa.rexilius at hotmail.com>
> Cc: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Message-ID: <001901cc1284$f7594eb0$e60bec10$@comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Let's be SURE it was food poisoning and doubly SURE that the alleged 
> Mexican
> place was the source before we start calling them out in public. Libel 
> laws
> apply to email too.

If the standard in this country for either libel or slander is "reckless 
disregard for the truth," one might be guilty of spewing garbage about an 
eating establishment, recounting an incident that is not representative, or 
turning an establishment against hiker-trash that was previously willing to 
help...  but neither libel nor slander (by the standard of the law) has 
occurred by naming said establishment. Saying that if you eat at X you will 
get sick and will feel like dying (without any knowledge of such) - that's 
libel; but to say that I ate at X and the best I can tell it was what I ate 
there that caused me to get sick and require a rescue - that's not. The 
question then becomes: is it more important/a higher value to warn other 
hikers of a possible problem, or, to possibly defame an establishment that 
might have been previously helpful, with the expectation they will ceasing 
being such?
TheDuck