Anyone know if answering a glowie's questions can be the basis of an intentional interference claim? Sure hope not.

Edit: to clarify, I did not initiate this. They just called me out of the blue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5315281&forum_id=2#46115369)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5315281&forum_id=2#46115382)

I'd think it'd be privileged. Exact treatment depends on jx (check statutes / CL once you est. applicable law) but cf. this autistic E.D. Wisc. op. discussing the well-pleaded cmplt rule and holding good faith disclosures to LEO re suspicion etc. of crime --> affirmative defense to a defamation action:

>>>

The defendant insists that the court must dismiss the defamation claim because there is a privilege that applies under the circumstances the plaintiff alleges. Indiana recognizes "qualified privileges" applying to "communications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in reference to which he had a duty, either public or private, either legal, moral, or social, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty." Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 762 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353, 1356 (Ind. 1992)). "As a defense to defamation," a qualified privilege does not mean that the words are not defamatory; it rebuts "the inference of malice that is [otherwise] imputed." Id. (quoting Holcomb v. Walter's Dimmick Petroleum, Inc., 858 N.E.2d 103, 106 (Ind. 2006)). One such qualified privilege "relates to the public interest in 'encourag[ing] private citizens and victims not only to report a crime, but also to assist law enforcement with investigating and apprehending individuals who engage in criminal activity." Id. (quoting [*31] Holcomb, 858 N.E.2d at 108). Based on this public interest, there is a "limited defense to civil liability premised on erroneous reports of criminal conduct to police." Id. at 763 (quoting Kelley, 865 N.E.2d at 601.

The problem with the defendant's argument is that assertion of a qualified privilege is an affirmative defense. Gillaspy v. Club Newtone, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-13-TLS-APR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157251, 2021 WL 3701463, *4 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 19, 2021). "Affirmative defenses do not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)." Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 944 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2003)). The plaintiff is not required to plead around an anticipated affirmative defense. Doe, 347 F.3d at 657.

LeSure v. Walmart Inc., No. 21-cv-472-pp, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151851, at *30-31 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 24, 2022)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5315281&forum_id=2#46115432)

Or did your junkie wife murder a dealer for some crack?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5315281&forum_id=2#46115635)

Aiming with our guns at each others face, at the same time

My nine on his lips, his fifth on my chin, I start whispering

"put your gun down, we can skip town"

Rocked him to sleep, pushed back his meat

Lift off his chain

Took his shit, emptied out close range

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5315281&forum_id=2#46120200)

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/12358h1/how_would_you_react

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5315281&forum_id=2#46117452)