I am undergoing a very similar experience, I don't think it is wrong to name the parties involved. It would be a benefit to your local community. In the USA at least, you don't have to worry about "libel" or "defamation" as the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Libel tourism only matters if you can be affected by UK judgements. I think the US no longer honors them, but I guess if you are in the EU, it is a problem.
European Libel laws are much more...liberal than they are in the US. Frequently, truth is not a defense to libel as it is in the U.S. In much of Europe, the primary element is that the defendant suffer harm to his reputation. See, for example, the British aristocrat who was truthfully outed as a Nazi sex fetishist...but won a judgement against the tabloid that published the pictures.
He was outed as a sex fetishist. The libel action was brought over the Nazi label, and the judge found there was no evidence of a Nazi theme. If the judge had found there was a Nazi theme, then the libel action would have failed - truth is a defence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7527319.stm
Yep, you're right. I mixed up the libel action with the invasion of privacy action. Truth is a defense to the libel claim but not to invasion of privacy. For IOP, truth is an element in newsworthiness, which can be a defense to IOP. (See eg http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/libel.pdf for a long boring legal discussion.)
> See, for example, the British aristocrat who was truthfully outed as a Nazi sex fetishist...but won a judgement against the tabloid that published the pictures.
I know of a similar, somewhat high-profile case in the US[0]. The point is not even whether or not the plaintiff can win; the issue is whether they have enough of a case to make your legal fees + opportunity cost of time wasted in court sufficiently high.
[0] I'd try and find it, but I'm hesitant to Google the keywords at work!
