united-states except as otherwise stated.
Is it ever illegal to spread true facts with malicious intent?
This is not a comprehensive answer, but illustrates some examples and counterexamples.
Confidentiality Obligations
The most common circumstance where it is illegal to spread true facts with malicious intent is when the person doing so has a legal duty, that obligates that person to keep certain information secret and maliciously breaches that duty in a way that harms someone whose information was protected.
This could arise, for example:
out of a contract (such as a non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality term in a settlement agreement or a confidentiality provision related to a bid),
a relationship (such as attorney-client, or psychotherapist-patient or an intimate sexual relationship in which photos or videos are taken without consent), or
some other circumstance (such as cheating on an official government exam by spreading the answers, holding a position of trust in a publicly held company, grand jury service, providing health insurance to an insured, working for the IRS or a bank or an adoption agency or a spy or a soldier).
It could also happen in the absence of any specialized duty, for example, when national security is impaired as a result, or when it has the practical effect of foreseeably aiding and abetting someone imminently about to commit a crime against someone (e.g. telling an assassin or kidnapper that his target is hiding in the closet).
Extortion
Threatening to maliciously disclose truthful information, without actually disclosing the information, to make someone do something that otherwise wouldn't do, is in some circumstances illegal extortion. This is obvious not, however, actual dissemination of true facts with malicious intent. The perpetrators goal is to get compliance not to carry out the threat.
Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress (a.k.a. Outrageous Conduct)
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress could qualify, but then the gravamen of the tort is not spreading true information, but the manner in which an interaction is framed to humiliate someone.
This tort (and crimes in a handful of jurisdictions) could conceivably include "pushing someone's buttons" by means including dissemination of truthful facts with malicious intent with the purpose of trying to make them commit suicide. In these cases the goal to be accomplished and the intended effect on the vulnerable victim, rather than the actual content of the communication in the abstract is what matters.
Verbal Acts
Some statements that are true in a tautological sense (i.e. by definition) but not because they convey information about pre-existing facts, can give rise to liability.
For example, if I say "Your fired" which becomes true when I say it, and I was not allowed to terminate someone's employment that could give rise to liability.
Or, if I have a contract to deliver widgets and I say, "I'm not going to deliver the widgets" that could give rise to liability as a repudiation of a contract that breaches a contract.
Or, if I have a contract that obligates me to sell something to one person, and I sell it to someone else saying "I hereby sell this to you.", that is a verbal act which could also create liability for breaching the original contract.
Examples From The Question
The examples given in the question mostly don't give rise to liability. For example, if none of the duties of confidentiality illustrated above apply:
Malicious gossip: widely spreading word that someone cheated on their
wife. Their employer hears about it and fires them. Otherwise their
employer had no reason to know this.
No, if true.
Facts out of context: "Mr XYZ won't deny being a pedophile" but only
because he hangs up every time the reporter asks.
A few states recognize the tort of "false light", although this would be a minority rule. It flows from linguistic context that falsely implies an untrue fact without actually saying so.
Plain old defamation, in some jurisdictions.
Germany recognizes insults and disrespect as offenses and classifies them as defamation even though U.S. law would not classify this kind of conduct as defamation. The mere facts alone, moreover, as opposed to the context and manner as well as what is said, impact whether this is wrongful conduct in Germany.
In the U.S. the closest one gets are crimes and torts like disturbing the peace, interfering with a law enforcement officer, harassment, and inciting a riot. Mostly, these offenses are not focused on any particular banned truthful content. They are focused on the intended effect of the communication and the manner and context of the communication.
Historically, statements dishonoring the dead, or pointing out the natural frailties of the disabled could be grounds for civil or criminal defamation in the U.S. although these grounds have virtually vanished and are currently legally in doubt.
Egging someone on to engage in illegal or violent conduct (i.e. taunting them) with truthful statements made with malicious intent could have impacts on the right to self-defense and could mitigate the offense of someone who rises to the taunts (but is rarely a complete excuse).
Contextual implication: "Black people commit more than 50% of violent
crimes" [because they are inherently violent beings and something
should be done to control them]
Not under U.S. law.
Stock price manipulation: "XYZ Corp is doing terribly" [so is every
company in that sector but I want the price of XYZ Corp in particular
to go down]
Very unlikely to give rise to liability. There is securities fraud in the form of market manipulation, but generally this doesn't include spreading truthful information.
Usually market manipulation flows from conduct (as opposed to statements of fact or concealment of information) related to securities that is part of a scheme to defraud.
Hate crimes
Under U.S. law "hate crimes" are generally always sentence enhancers for other acts that already constitute crimes. Disseminating truthful information with a malicious purpose is essentially never a hate crime.
incitement to hatred
This concept is not recognized in U.S. law. U.S. law does impose liability for conduct that is discriminatory based upon improper considerations, but this is more along the lines of liability for verbal acts than malicious distribution of true information.
U.S. law does recognize crimes such as inciting a riot and solicitation of a crime, both of which contemplate urging other people to imminently commit a crime.
