Cafe ribbing becomes libel suit. Free Speech attack?

[zzzz]

Interesting suit that could further erode an individuals ability to say what they want in public. I suppose it could even be argued that if you were talking to a friend or your spouse in public about someone being gay or fat and someone overheard you, it could be libel. Crazy.

Bennie Dale Morris used to be a regular at Frank's Place — eating meals and drinking coffee several times a day at the smoke-filled cafe — until the restaurant owner's joking around got a little too personal.

In fact, Morris and longtime restaurant owner Phong Van Meter, who used to be friends, are now in a classic he-said, she-said legal standoff with First Amendment implications that may wind up before the Texas Supreme Court. At issue is whether her loud jokes in front of customers, in which she is accused of implying that Morris is gay — a suggestion that he and his friend vehemently deny — went too far.
...
"If the verdict is allowed to stand, it will have the most profound and dramatic effect on conversations and free speech," Maples wrote in his brief to the Supreme Court. "It will make joking remarks, hasty words made in anger, and mischievous statements an actionable tort and turn every barbershop, tavern and small town restaurant into litigation centers."
...

Small-town cafe banter becomes lawsuit

 

[Emma]

This is what happens when you let the old people out.

 

[zzzz]

This is what happens when you let the old people out.

 

[sparky]

but we've always had slander stand up in court, so this supreeme action gets a tad confusing imho, just what benchmark are we talking (or not talking?) ~S~

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but we've always had slander stand up in court, so this supreeme action gets a tad confusing imho, just what benchmark are we talking (or not talking?) ~S~

There is nothing confusing about it at all, slander is said with an intent to do damage, and it actually has to cause damage to be actionable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

but we've always had slander stand up in court, so this supreeme action gets a tad confusing imho, just what benchmark are we talking (or not talking?) ~S~

There is nothing confusing about it at all, slander is said with an intent to do damage, and it actually has to cause damage to be actionable.

Yup aside from intent is the absolute requirement that ACTUAL damage occurred from the comment, statement or remark.