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)

[John Beresford Tipton]

The "reckless" test is for media defendants, or for puitive damages for implied malice. An individual who says "X is a murderer" would have to prove that X was in fact a murderer if sued, regardless of how reasonable the conclusion had appeared to the speaker.

[Modernman]

And to opine in America , which is what we do here, is Constitutionally protected speech not subject to defamation laws.

Unless the opinion crosses the line into statement of fact: "jwalsh07 is a jackass" is an opinion. "jwalsh07" is a child molestor is a libelous statement of fact.

(I don't believe either of these statements, btw)

[WackyKat]

No, you can't be sued , arrested or pilloried in America for offering up opinions despite what Palpatine wants some to think

Wrong. Palpatine knows the law, you don't.

Statements some here have made about Schiavo are clearly defamatory.

If Schiavo is the evil, greedy man some here say he is, then he would dearly love to make some spending money by filing defamation suits, wouldn't he?

[TheAngryClam]

Wrong.

I don't speak for the Chancellor on this issue, and have disagreed with him rather louding in the past, but we remember the days when Conservatives were pleased with the rule of law.

[dead]

He was not found guilty of murder, because you cannot be charged with murder in a civil court.

Still, OJ is a murderer.

[Dixielander]

Are you trying to change my opinion that Michael and his henchmen are evil? If so, it won't work. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[John Beresford Tipton]

Why then mention the "Federal supeona"
because a defendant can be sued in federal court in florida, which would apply florida substantive law. Also with a Federal subpoena you can pay a fee and it gets served by a federal marshal.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

"Federal subpoena" would reflect the most advantageous and fastest way to get IP addresses, confidential info and pulled posts via a Federal diversity suit. Possibly a class action - which thought just entered my head, but which is probably deficient in some way. Those later discovered to reside within Florida could be pursued at leisure, but those pursued out of state would undoubtedly be pursued Federally for ease of enforcement of judgments.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

That's my point. He was not found guilty of murder in court.

You can say, "in my opinion, he is a murderer". But you cannot say "he IS a murderer", and expect it to hold up in an anti-defamation lawsuit.

I don't think OJ is going to sue you. But, I would worry about Felos and Schiavo.

[zeugma]

He doesn't leave home without them! I can't think of someone who takes a more consistantly statist stance on this board than Chancellor Palpatine.

[PleaseNoMore]

Felos and schiavo have a lot of threads to go through...

[inquest]

Wrong.

No, ckca has it exactly right. This isn't the first temper-tantrum thread this particular troll has started over what happened in Florida. He's obviously very upset about it.

[Catspaw]

Why then mention the "Federal supeona" while cutting and pasting up Florida law?

The post was not specific to Florida law, but to defamation law in general.

[lonevoice]

If Schiavo is the evil, greedy man some here say he is, then he would dearly love to make some spending money by filing defamation suits, wouldn't he?

Then he better get busy filing lawsuits against deep pockets like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck instead of sending his apologists to Free Republic.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

They could just subpoena FR's records, even get the pulled posts, I assume.

[Modernman]

OJ was found guilty in civil court.

You can't be found "guilty" in civil court- he was found liable in a civil suit.

Anyway, I'm comfortable saying OJ is a murderer- if he wants to sue me, I can rely on the finding in the civil suit he lost to show that my statement was true.

[MHGinTN]

Palpatine and his lawyer butties are ticked off because the Florida Legislature has proven the activist courts to have limits which the elected representatives can set and are beginning to set. The taboo structure of our society has been raped and pillaged by the lawyers and activist judges for too long. Now, as some limits are beginning to arise, the self-appointed societal engineers (like Palpatine and his lawyer butties) are pissed because they will not have free run to mutate the society as fills thier pockets. Besides, Mr. Schindler invited the POS Michael Schiavo to sue him to give him the legal recourse to do 'discovery'.

[bvw]

Is J.B.Tipton a murderer? In my opinion, no. But that's just my opinion.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

They could just subpoena FR's records, even get the pulled posts, I assume.

Yup, including all IP addresses ever logged under - which gives you the whole enchilada.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Exactly... you have the civil suit to back you up.

I don't think it would bother Schiavo at all to sink so low as to sue Freerepublic, Glenn Beck, and everyone else under the sun. He has a pretty good track record, so far. He has prevailed much further than anyone would have thought he would. And I do think Felos would enjoy the challenge. They would love the publicity.

I do think that the Schindlers should be extremely concerned about being sued for slander by Schiavo. They need a new attorney.