Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]
Florida Bar Association ^

Posted on 10/24/2003 10:14:40 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine

Edited on 10/24/2003 12:02:17 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]

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)


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,761-1,774 next last
To: Poohbah
It was a joke like this stupid post. Anybody going to sue me for calling this post stupid??? Can you prove it isn't stupid??? Can you prove that the poster isn't trying to intimidate the posters at the Free Republic???
241 posted on 10/24/2003 11:57:41 AM PDT by Porterville (American First, Human being Second; liberal your derivative lifestyle will never be normalized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
You are in deep shit to say "X is a murderer" unless you are prepared to prove that X is in fact a murderer.

In your world pro lifers who believe that abortionists commit murder and say so are liable to defamation suits.

Welcome to the Rhineland.

242 posted on 10/24/2003 11:57:43 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Warren_Piece
Who is Jack McCoy?
243 posted on 10/24/2003 11:57:48 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
I'm almost certain that the scumbag would never sue for defamation because he doesn't want to see the evidence in a civil trial. I think people are pretty safe.
244 posted on 10/24/2003 11:58:24 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Don't understand why Freepers cannot see this is good info that has been put and should be heeded. This "freedom of speech" at all costs on here is a ridiculous argument. They need to put up their own site if they want to say anything they want about anybody!

Jim Robinson is free to remove any posts that he believes constitute a legal liability.

I’ll trust his judgement over Chancellor Palpatine’s.

245 posted on 10/24/2003 11:58:32 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: gdani
"Of course, if you have to spend tens-of-thousands of dollars to defend yourself then does it ultimately matter if the suit is successful or not?"

The expenditure to which you refer is always voluntary. You always can represent yourself and let the chips -- however miniscule or few they may be -- fall where they may.

Always remember that any esquiretitute worth his fermentation products won't take on a lawsuit that may well be unproductive. And counter-damages for a plaintiff's legal expenses can really piss off a blood-sucking client big-time and long-term.

Confucius say: "30% of jack-$#!t from bloodless turnip is same as what looks like"......

246 posted on 10/24/2003 11:58:49 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; hobbes1
my point is that there have been a lot of accusations and allegations thrown around as if fact, yet not really known by the folks spreading them. Its one thing to come up with principled opposition and to advocate that strongly, it is another to make direct allegations and present that as truth, when you have no actual knowledge of it and haven't bothered checking. It contributed to a hothouse atmosphere, and was used to put the pressure on the legislators and Jeb, without regard to evidence. to impeach a sitting president in back in the 1990's.
247 posted on 10/24/2003 11:58:53 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Official Scheming Diabolical Minion of the Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
So you want this thread taken down because you don't like what it has to say but then on the other side of the coin whatever anyone wants to say on the Internet should be allowed? Do I have that right?

Do you not see the hypocricy in that?

My only hope is that at least one person reads this thread and decides to think before posting statements that could cause trouble! Somehow I have little faith in that happening!
248 posted on 10/24/2003 11:59:19 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
" perhaps you might wish to reference them for us?"

He would be ill advised to do that.
For him to say "here is a defamatory post" and to reprint it would put him in the same dock as the author. The maxim is something like "tale bearers are as liable as tale makers"
249 posted on 10/24/2003 11:59:32 AM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: dead
Isn't CP like the Emperor or something?
250 posted on 10/24/2003 12:00:07 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I've said that I will fight any subpoena to the best of my ability. I've also said that I'm not going to protect anyone who makes really stupid or illegal statements, ie, threats of violence or really vicious personal attacks, etc, that we don't want here anyway. I recommend not posting anything that will possibly result in a lawsuit or potentially a jail term.
251 posted on 10/24/2003 12:00:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ckca; Chancellor Palpatine
"attempt to silence"

I'm confused. In what way is posting a completely accurate and neutral statement of defamation law an "attempt to silence" anyone?

So if I post a comprehensive list of gun control laws in all 50 states do I automatically become a "gun grabber?"

If I post a list of tax laws relating to churches does that make be a Christian basher?

I've seen people here state plainly that Schiavo is trying to finish the murder he started 13 years ago. If I was in his shoes [and didn't do it] and I heard such a statement, I'd do everything in my power to call the person to task for it. And CP's point, I believe, is that the law would, in fact, provide a remedy.

252 posted on 10/24/2003 12:00:57 PM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
found the decision
253 posted on 10/24/2003 12:01:05 PM PDT by TheAngryClam (Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: harrowup
Hint - Try googling the word "defamation", then wade through the hits.
254 posted on 10/24/2003 12:01:14 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
I guess I'll have to read up more on this, but it just seems so unjust to me. If I'm doing everything within the borders of my own state, I'd think I'd have the right to not be blindsided by the laws of another state, the drafting of which I had absolutely no say in. Either that, or there should be some controlling federal law. At least I'd have a say in that.
255 posted on 10/24/2003 12:01:39 PM PDT by inquest ("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Because it is a stupid post that is meant to intimidate people who know little about the web... it is cruel... and for some reason a few people on this posting is actually believing the BS that has been posted.

Garbage, cruel, and incorrect in it connotations.

256 posted on 10/24/2003 12:02:07 PM PDT by Porterville (American First, Human being Second; liberal your derivative lifestyle will never be normalized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
"They serve court process, and if you lose they seize and auction off your property and pay it over to the winning side. "

They wouldn't get too much out of me.. I'm broke.
257 posted on 10/24/2003 12:02:28 PM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Porterville
see 251
258 posted on 10/24/2003 12:03:45 PM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (You may forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The bible is what people swear on in courtrooms when they take oaths.

Very few, if any, courts use an actual Bible when swearing in a witness. In our state, the person raises his (or her) right hand and says, "I swear or affirm...."

259 posted on 10/24/2003 12:04:35 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I've seen people here state plainly that Schiavo is trying to finish the murder he started 13 years ago. If I was in his shoes [and didn't do it] and I heard such a statement, I'd do everything in my power to call the person to task for it. And CP's point, I believe, is that the law would, in fact, provide a remedy.

Michael Schiavo has been called all sorts of good stuff by Mr Shindler. Mr Shindler has invited him to file a defamation suit. Thus far MS had declined.

Care to guess why?

260 posted on 10/24/2003 12:04:58 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,761-1,774 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson