Depends on the country. In UK truth is no defense for libel.
Also if you are sued for libel in US and prove that they indeed have a security hole that gives them the evidence directly to sue you for 'hacking' their site.
> Justification: a defendant must show that the substance and fact of what they have written is true. However, a judge decides what the words meant, and therefore what a defendant must prove to be true – sometimes not what a defendant expects.
> and introducing new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and 'publication on a matter of public interest' or privileged publications (including peer reviewed scientific journals),
US courts (at a state level) have occasionally ruled similarly, it is a worrying trend.
> The court ruled in the case of Noonan v. Staples that truth published with “actual malice” gleaned from the context of the statement can give rise to a libel lawsuit.
What?
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/A_quick_guide_to...
> Justification: a defendant must show that the substance and fact of what they have written is true. However, a judge decides what the words meant, and therefore what a defendant must prove to be true – sometimes not what a defendant expects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
> Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement),
Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
> and introducing new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and 'publication on a matter of public interest' or privileged publications (including peer reviewed scientific journals),