It's not a black and white area, but you'd be on dodgy ground as you'd be (potentially) repeating the libel.
Fortunately, libel cases are notoriously expensive to bring, and have a habit of unearthing other dirty linen.

The forum I ran for some years got threatened with a libel case some years ago - we knew what we were saying was true, but it was difficult to prove. The person who threatened to sue us spoke to his solicitor who essentially went "the forum has no money, I'm going to charge you a fortune but it's your call" and that was the last we heard of it.

It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.

Technically not quite, the defence (at present) is "justification" but the unfortunate part is, you need to establish the justification. In order words, it is up to you to [iprove[/i that the statement was true.

If it was true, then it wasn't a libel. It wouldn't be much consolation, but the fact that you lost your case cos you couldn't [iprove[/i it was true means that you didn't prove it [iwasn't[/i a libel.

It's a bit on the lines of 'innocent until proved guilty' - that is, 'libellous until proved true'

It is a bad aspect of current libel laws though moves are afoot for long overdue reform. Still, though, there is a point to the law as it is. Otherwise, anybody could say any lie (eg X beats his wife) and have a perfect defence simply by saying 'it's the truth'.

But if you can prove it's true, then you do have a perfect libel defence.

Quote ="Big Graeme"It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.'" So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel? I didn't say it wasn't possible to prove it, just difficult. If push had come to shove then we'd have proven it. So sorry, but you're wrong. They may try to sue me for libel, but thats a different argument. The statement, if anything, is defamatory, but defamatory statements are not the same as libelous ones. To use the example given, it was most certainly a defamatory statement to say he was a thief, but it was't libelous as it could be shown to be true. Point 5 here: www.website-law.co.uk/resources/ ... libel.html is worth bearing in mind.

Quote ="Big Graeme"It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.'" So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel? I didn't say it wasn't possible to prove it, just difficult. If push had come to shove then we'd have proven it. So sorry, but you're wrong. They may try to sue me for libel, but thats a different argument. The statement, if anything, is defamatory, but defamatory statements are not the same as libelous ones. To use the example given, it was most certainly a defamatory statement to say he was a thief, but it was't libelous as it could be shown to be true. Point 5 here: www.website-law.co.uk/resources/ ... libel.html is worth bearing in mind.

Nope, see I used the word can, as you say the burden of proof is on you not the plaintiff.