What is Truth?: True Suspects and False Defamation

A television station reports that an individual is a suspect in a murder case. A newspaper reports that a business or charity is under investigation to determine whether it has provided funding to terrorists or terrorist organizations. It is true that the individual is a suspect in the police investigation of the murder, and that the government is investigating the business or charity for possible financial links to terrorists. However, the suspicion is wrong, or at least unprovable. As far as can be determined from the available evidence, the individual did not commit a murder, and the business or charity did not provide funds to terrorists. If the party identified as a suspect or investigation target brings a defamation action, the defendant will assert that the report it made to the public was true and truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. The plaintiff, however, will assert that the report damaged the plaintiff’s reputation by causing the public to suspect the plaintiff of criminal or improper acts and the suspicion was false, so the defense of truth should not succeed. Which version of “truth” will prevail in these circumstances? What must be true for the defendant to avoid liability? This is the question that this article examines and attempts to answer. The answer will determine whether an innocent person can obtain some remedy for harm to reputation or whether the media will enjoy what amounts to an absolute immunity from liability when the published report is literally accurate in identifying a person as a suspect or under investigation. American courts have not developed a satisfactory or authoritative answer to the question of what is “truth” in this situation. This article will put forward answers that are well-grounded in defamation common law and constitutional law and strike a reasonable balance between allowing the media freedom to report on criminal investigations and providing a remedy to innocent parties whose reputation has been damaged

The Prosser Myth of Transferred Intent

The main theme of this Article is that Prosser advanced a mythical doctrine of transferred intent. What Prosser asserted to be the law was not the law when he wrote his article on transferred intent and amended his treatise. The cases he relied on to support his conclusions on transferred intent did not support them. Moreover, despite Prosser’s great influence on American tort law, Prosser’s position on transferred intent is not the law now and should not be. Its consequences are undesirable. Recognition of transferred intent as a basis of liability is due primarily to its inclusion in the First and Second Restatements of Torts. Transferred intent does not and should not extend beyond the Restatements’ rules

What is Truth?: True Suspects and False Defamation

A television station reports that an individual is a suspect in a murder case. A newspaper reports that a business or charity is under investigation to determine whether it has provided funding to terrorists or terrorist organizations. It is true that the individual is a suspect in the police investigation of the murder, and that the government is investigating the business or charity for possible financial links to terrorists. However, the suspicion is wrong, or at least unprovable. As far as can be determined from the available evidence, the individual did not commit a murder, and the business or charity did not provide funds to terrorists. If the party identified as a suspect or investigation target brings a defamation action, the defendant will assert that the report it made to the public was true and truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. The plaintiff, however, will assert that the report damaged the plaintiff’s reputation by causing the public to suspect the plaintiff of criminal or improper acts and the suspicion was false, so the defense of truth should not succeed. Which version of “truth” will prevail in these circumstances? What must be true for the defendant to avoid liability? This is the question that this article examines and attempts to answer. The answer will determine whether an innocent person can obtain some remedy for harm to reputation or whether the media will enjoy what amounts to an absolute immunity from liability when the published report is literally accurate in identifying a person as a suspect or under investigation. American courts have not developed a satisfactory or authoritative answer to the question of what is “truth” in this situation. This article will put forward answers that are well-grounded in defamation common law and constitutional law and strike a reasonable balance between allowing the media freedom to report on criminal investigations and providing a remedy to innocent parties whose reputation has been damaged

The Prosser Myth of Transferred Intent

The main theme of this Article is that Prosser advanced a mythical doctrine of transferred intent. What Prosser asserted to be the law was not the law when he wrote his article on transferred intent and amended his treatise. The cases he relied on to support his conclusions on transferred intent did not support them. Moreover, despite Prosser’s great influence on American tort law, Prosser’s position on transferred intent is not the law now and should not be. Its consequences are undesirable. Recognition of transferred intent as a basis of liability is due primarily to its inclusion in the First and Second Restatements of Torts. Transferred intent does not and should not extend beyond the Restatements’ rules

Tai Chi for osteopenic women: design and rationale of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Post-menopausal osteopenic women are at increased risk for skeletal fractures. Current osteopenia treatment guidelines include exercise, however, optimal exercise regimens for attenuating bone mineral density (BMD) loss, or for addressing other fracture-related risk factors (e.g. poor balance, decreased muscle strength) are not well-defined. Tai Chi is an increasingly popular weight bearing mind-body exercise that has been reported to positively impact BMD dynamics and improve postural control, however, current evidence is inconclusive. This study will determine the effectiveness of Tai Chi in reducing rates of bone turnover in post-menopausal osteopenic women, compared with standard care, and will preliminarily explore biomechanical processes that might inform how Tai Chi impacts BMD and associated fracture risks.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A total of 86 post-menopausal women, aged 45-70y, T-score of the hip and/or spine -1.0 and -2.5, have been recruited from primary care clinics of a large healthcare system based in Boston. They have been randomized to a group-based 9-month Tai Chi program plus standard care or to standard care only. A unique aspect of this trial is its pragmatic design, which allows participants randomized to Tai Chi to choose from a pre-screened list of community-based Tai Chi programs. Interviewers masked to participants' treatment group assess outcomes at baseline and 3 and 9 months after randomization. Primary outcomes are serum markers of bone resorption (C-terminal cross linking telopeptide of type I collagen), bone formation (osteocalcin), and BMD of the lumbar spine and proximal femur (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry). Secondary outcomes include health-related quality-of-life, exercise behavior, and psychological well-being. In addition, kinetic and kinematic characterization of gait, standing, and rising from a chair are assessed in subset of participants (n = 16) to explore the feasibility of modeling skeletal mechanical loads and postural control as mediators of fracture risk.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Results of this study will provide preliminary evidence regarding the value of Tai Chi as an intervention for decreasing fracture risk in osteopenic women. They will also inform the feasibility, value and potential limitations related to the use of pragmatic designs for the study of Tai Chi and related mind-body exercise. If the results are positive, this will help focus future, more in-depth, research on the most promising potential mechanisms of action identified by this study.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This trial is registered in Clinical Trials.gov, with the ID number of NCT01039012.</p