It's libel not slander: both are types of defamation. Legally, you're in a bit of a minefield whether you name them or not. Name them and get it wrong and you're stuffed. Name them and get it right and you'd still have to prove it if challenged. Name them and get it *half* right - ie suggest they were responsible for the entire outbreak when in fact they only caused part of it - and you're as badly off as if you'd got it completely wrong. *But* if you don't name them, then all the other shops in the same street with no connection to the sickness can claim that you libelled them by allowing people to form the impression they were the cause. Basically, the tests work like this. First they have to prove that you a) identified them (even if not explicitly, or if you did it by accident because you hid the identity of the real culprit) b) published the comments (which you did, on the blog) and c) defamed them. There are various definitions of defaming, all wonderfully archaic, for example damaging a person in their calling or profession, but the catch-all is the killer - lowering a person in the estimation of right-thinking people generally. Once they've proved these three things, which is usually pretty easy, then you need a defence. There are several. Truth is one - if it's true, you're safe (although you have to prove it - Robert Maxwell won numerous cases from people who knew he was a crook but couldn't prove it). Fair comment is another, but it has to be based on hard fact or privileged information or a mix of both (more on privelege in a moment). Fair comment is NOT the same as expressing an opinion - it HAS to be based on something. So if you know a place has caused food poisoning on three separate occasions, it's fair comment to say they probably have poor hygeine standards, even though you probably can't prove it. Privelege is where you are basing the statement on something said by someone in an official capacity. If a Met Police spokesman, or a magistrate in a hearing, or a councillor in a meeting, says the kebab house was deliberately trying to commit mass murder by poisoning, you can repeat it even if it's totally false. BUT you can't twist their words to make them go further than they were intended, use them maliciously, or rely on anything said outside of an official situation, eg a whispered tip-off. If an FA spokesman in a press conference says that Robbie Savage is a murderous psychopath, you're safe to repeat it. If an opposing manager says it in a post-match rant because one of his players has been carried off with teethmarks in his throat, you're not. I think there's a few more arcane defences, but those are the main ones. Note what's missing: accidental defamation. It does exist as a defence, but the tests are so stringent that you can forget about ever using it. This, by the way, is all the fruit of my journalism training from back in 1990. IF IN DOUBT, FIND A LAWYER. Andy http://random-incident.journalspace.com