So now you're saying it's 'obvious' that he is a thief. Are you the judge and jury?

Don't get me wrong. Assuming that he is indeed still alive, I think it's about time people tracked him down to find out what is happening. Members of this community have shown great patience, and regardless of any illness or calamity that may have fallen on him, it is well past time that he dealt with the fact that he owes people money.

But that still doesn't change the fact that your statement was potentially libelous (*). Until convicted of theft, you cannot label anyone a thief without it being at least _potentially_ libelous. Suppose he ended up in court on charges and was found not guilty (for whatever reason or technicality). He could then turn around and sue Tom for publishing that statement.

I don't want to stop anyone expressing their opinion. Free speech is protected to begin with, and it's not like I have any way to stop it anyway even if I were so inclined. But you didn't express an opinion that you thought that he was a thief. You outright called him one.

A judge in a libel case just isn't going to care how long you've been lurking anonymously on a forum, or what has been posted before, when deciding whether he is indeed a thief. He's going to look at the convictions - and only the convictions.

Welcome to the community. Please treat it with care.

(*) Yeah, I used the wrong word earlier. Libel is writtten, slander is spoken. I think you knew what I meant.