| Regular Price: | $36.99 |
Boodles Gin (1.75 LTR): 96 PTS BEVERAGE TESTING INSTITUTE. Reminiscent of citrus, flowers and spices. Loaded with fragrance, this is a classic combination of power and finesse as it lingers with a smooth, oily finish.
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)
Naw!
Clinton made it perfectly O.K. to screw anywhere!
Even the Oval Office.
My understanding from the posts here is that the Schindlers have pretty much lost most of their assets pursuing this case.
Besides, if you are seeking to clear your good name, the assets of the offending party don't matter at all.
I thought the word was that Schiavo isn't interested in his good name, only the money.
Of course, if Mr. Schiavo were to sue Mr. Schindler, he would have to make public a lot of information he is now keeping secret and he would have to attempt to prove what Mr. Schindler said was untrue.
Actually, the reverse is true on some of the more lurid charges being thrown out. Otherwise, someone could post a billboard in your hometown calling you a homosexual pedophile, and you would have ZERO ability to prosecute the case in court--because you cannot prove a negative assertion (i.e., you can't prove "I am not a homosexual pedophile" as a conclusive fact). Essentially, the defendant would have to prove that you ARE really that vile and odious.
IIRC, once he does that, he has a limited time period to act. A wise strategery would be to collect as much evidence as possible before striking.
How many parties in the Unites States would he need to pursue?
At first, he'd only have to pursue FR to divulge the names of the posters in question, then their ISPs.
From there? Who knows? Maybe it's only 20-30 people on FR, posting under multiple nics...
| Regular Price: | $36.99 |
Boodles Gin (1.75 LTR): 96 PTS BEVERAGE TESTING INSTITUTE. Reminiscent of citrus, flowers and spices. Loaded with fragrance, this is a classic combination of power and finesse as it lingers with a smooth, oily finish.
Because there's no end to fear. This is a forum of strong opinions. Stromg opinions are needed to form and police good laws. Milquetoast opinions result in tyrannny.
Be a free adult and be NOT afraid to give your strong opinion in this forum. Better men and women than us all gave their fortune, blood and lives for us to be able to do exactly that.
It doesn't matter; the Sullivan rule makes it essentially impossible to prove libel against him, no matter how much money he has.
Mr. Schiavo must have almost unlimited resources to pursue this.
The ACLU is working with Mr. Schiavo. There are your "unlimited resources."
Hasn't as yet.
How many parties in the Unites States would he need to pursue?
One--if the other party is in another state. That's for a federal lawsuit.
You may be right, but do you really think that Schiavo can make money by lawsuits against anyone who said or posted something to him?
Besides, how can he go after someone who posted something on a web site, if he doesn't go after Mr. Schindler who made the allegations on the national media? How could he reasonably argue that such posts caused damages, but not the Mr. Schindler?
Oh, I know. And of course, it keeps that feverish poster over at LP very busy.
The statute of limitations is just starting to run on Mr. Schindler and restarts everytime he makes the allegations, for the purposes of suit.
And the law is a curious thing, is it not?
He may go after the press outlets involved at a time of his choosing.
And as for going after Mr. Schindler, he can even argue that the familial bond outweighs the direct damage caused. In other words, he doesn't have to play your game, and he can look noble in so doing.
Bottom line: if you don't know something is a fact, don't state it as such, and you'll save yourself a lot of grief.
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.