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)
Protected by whom and from what?
If you posted this with the ongoing Schivo tragedy on your mind, let me state for the record that I believe Terri's family and therefore must call evil, evil.
Michael Shiavo and his attorney are monsters, imho. Evil, predatory and dangerous.
Let’s assume an attorney showed up on FreeRepublic, and adopted a copyrighted screen name like, say, ‘Winnie the Pooh.’ Normally that's not a big concern, but let’s assume the attorney subsequently agreed to represent a client with a somewhat questionable reputation – someone like Jack Kavorkian or Bill Clinton. And then let’s assume that the attorney started representing Mr. Kavorkian (or Mr. Clinton ;>) in a professional manner, on FreeRepublic, while using the screen name ‘Winnie the Pooh.’
Here’s the question: Do you think the owner of the ‘Winnie the Pooh’ copyright might object? After all, the copyright owner makes money off the name ‘Winnie the Pooh’ – books, movies, ‘action figures,’ etc. I’m sure the owner would be interested in a license fee, at the very least, if an attorney set up a de facto ‘Winnie the Pooh Online Law Office.’ Or perhaps the copyright owner would simply pursue legal action. Especially if the owner had his own team of attorneys on retainer, and considered the unapproved association with Jack Kavorkian (or Mr. Clinton ;>) to be harmful. And especially if the attorney’s FreeRepublic home page was one of the top two listings provided by Google when an online search for ‘Winnie the Pooh’ was conducted.
Actually, you don’t need to answer. The scenario isn’t very realistic. Most attorneys would recognize the risks involved: they might be spotted by a representative of the copyright owner who happens to post at FreeRepublic, or reported to the copyright owner by a ‘Winnie the Pooh’ fan (an especially likely event, if they had attempted to intimidate any ‘Winnie the Pooh’ fans ;>). The risks would outweigh the benefits, don’t you think?
;>)
If you and Bob can't answer a simple question with a degree of credibility then perhaps you should refrain from joining in the debate.
Neets, I take this back. I was reminded by my chick of a friendship *I* have with a Forum Pricktm. She pointed out the hypocrisy in me asking you your justification when I had the exact same issue.
Wise chick, that one. I think I'll keep her. :^D
Why?
Excellent point.
This is a bit like that show Jeopardy, right?
Nunya bidness?
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.