DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[Chancellor Palpatine]

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides a broad right of freedom of speech. However, if a false statement has been made about you, you may have wondered if you could sue for defamation.

Generally, defamation consists of: (1) a false statement of fact about another; (2) an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; (3) some degree of fault, depending on the type of case; and (4) some harm or damage. Libel is defamation by the printed word and slander is defamation by the spoken word.

If the statement is made about a public official - for example, a police officer, mayor, school superintendent - or a public figure - that is a generally prominent person or a person who is actively involved in a public controversy, then it must be proven that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or false. In other words, the fact that the statement was false is not enough to recover for defamation. On the other hand, if the statement was made about a private person, then it must be proven that the false statement was made without reasonable care as to whether the statement was true or false.

There are a number of defenses available in a defamation action. Of course, if a statement is true, there can be no action for defamation. Truth is a complete defense. Additionally, if the statement is an expression of an opinion as opposed to a statement of fact, there can be no action for defamation. We do not impose liability in this country for expressions of opinion. However, whether a statement will be deemed to be an expression of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact is not always an easy question to answer. For example, the mere fact that a statement is found in an editorial is not enough to qualify for the opinion privilege if the particular statement contained in the editorial is factual in nature.

There is also a privilege known as neutral reporting. For example, if a newspaper reports on newsworthy statements made about someone, the newspaper is generally protected if it makes a disinterested report of those statements. In some cases, the fact that the statements were made is newsworthy and the newspaper will not be held responsible for the truth of what is actually said.

There are other privileges as well. For example, where a person, such as a former employer, has a duty to make reports to other people and makes a report in good faith without any malicious intent, that report will be protected even though it may not be totally accurate.

Another example of a privilege is a report on a judicial proceeding. News organizations and others reporting on activities that take place in a courtroom are protected from defamation actions if they have accurately reported what took place.

If you think you have been defamed by a newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, you must make a demand for retraction before a lawsuit can be filed. If the newspaper, magazine, radio or television station publishes a retraction, you can still file suit, but your damages may be limited. Unless the media defendant acted with malice, bad faith or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the story, you can only recover your actual damages. No punitive damages can be assessed in the absence of these elements.

An action for libel or slander must be brought within two years of the time the statements were made. If you wait beyond this two year period, any lawsuit will be barred.

Libel and slander cases are often very complicated. Before you decide to take any action in a libel or slander case, you should consult with an attorney. An attorney can help you decide whether you have a case and advise you regarding the time and expense involved in bringing this type of action.

(updated 12/01)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

And you can FReepmail me for my ID provided you list all of your alias so I don't have to screw around at discovery. I've only one ID.

Your point?

[inquest]

Thanks for the explanation. So, just as a devil's advocate type of situation, suppose I, as a Maryland resident in Maryland, throw a rock in a non-criminal manner through the window of somebody's house across the border in Virginia. Which state's laws would apply?

[exmarine]

If someone filed such a suit against me, they would have to prove that my statements were false. If the bible says my statements are true, then you will also have to dismantle the very basis for western law.

[ruoflaw]

Please go back and read the bottom line on his post

[Porterville]

Yeah, assuming US Marshals have nothing to do than bother a bunch of political posters... give me a break.

[Modernman]

Gut feeling? No. It would be the domicile of the estate that controlled.

You are correct, sir.

[PhiKapMom]

From all accounts the latest threads on this case are the nastiest ever on this site and that says something.

My question is why take a chance by making outlandish statements that cannot be backed up on threads if they could get Jim and FR in trouble? Aren't we all adults that can control what we write on here?

From the sound of it, this case has enough facts that the outlandish speculation and comments were not necessary.

[Catspaw]

Like the Church of Scientology... and they have been VERY successful. Even if they don't win every case they file, they wear down the defendants and silence the critics.

Have they been successful. I can think of two of the lawsuits--one against a critic of the Church of Scientology, and one as a defendant in the woman who died in their care. Nasty, nasty litigation--and all coming out of Clearwater, Florida.

[Old Professer]

Just as an observation: In the language of tools, reason is a scalpel, while the law is a sledgehammer.

[TheAngryClam]

Just plead over the amount in damages- it's not a likely to recover, just possibly could.

And the limit is not very high considering the amount awarded in most tort cases these days.

[jmc813]

Sorry, I don't plan on changing my tagline for quite a while.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

They are the official process servers for Federal Courts. You pay the check, they serve the papers when they get around to it.

They're remarkably efficient, too.

[Sloth]

I assume from the Florida focus that this is about the Schiavo case.

If so, let me state unequivocally that Michael Schiavo and George Felos are attempted murderers. Period.

I guess you can call the DA now.

[Catspaw]

Yeah, assuming US Marshals have nothing to do than bother a bunch of political posters... give me a break.

They don't see it that way. If they're assigned to do a job--for example, find you to serve you--they'll find you and serve you.

[jmc813]

Your statement is ludicrous in itself -- you cannot hide behind a screen name for long.

Anyone who in this day and age signs up to a site such as this using real identifying information and does not spoof their IP address is foolish IMO.

[LanPB01]

Are we following the second or third restatement of the law on conflicts?

[harrowup]

Document your claim or shut the hell up.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The Bible would bear no weight in your suit. Its not evidence.

[Porterville]

Please, how can you spend your time worrying about such fancyfull nonsense??? You act like a court would actually take the case or a lawyer would even be so degenerate( possible but not likely)

This whole post is Bull Shi..

[exmarine]

Get ready to include the bible in your lawsuit as that will be my authority.