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)
I would disagree. On the other hand, if someone were to call Schiavo a murderer it would likely be a defense that because the story has gained such notoriety most people would know that he didn't actually 'murder' his wife and the such language would be rhetorical in nature. This would be much like calling an abortionist a murderer. In addition, political speach enjoys the broadest of protections outside of the legislative or judicial process and comments related to the Schaivo case could readily be construed a plitical in nature.
I remembered the Deborah part (except I remembered it as "Debbie"), but couldn't get the last name. But I remember the trial well. Funny thing, though--Irving thought he'd be able to win because of the construct of the UK's libel laws. The decision all but excoriated Mr. Irving.
Sorry, it doesn't wash. It is logically impossible to prove a negative statement to conclusion; that is why the state carries the burden of proof in criminal trials.
Plus, in an attempt to prove such, the defense could subpoena a lot of things that aren't open now.
True. But a smart plaintiff's attorney will simply file a narrowly-crafted suit on a specific comment, probably the most lurid and most difficult to prove of the bunch.
Discovery, contrary to popular belief, is NOT an open-ended process.
The ACLU is helping Mr. Schiavo in his efforts to put down his wife, not with any libel actions. The ACLU, as insane as it is, is not going to help him go after some web sites, etc etc. The ACLU is crazy, but that would require them to contradict half the lawsuits they have going on out there. The ACLU is NEVER going to help Mr. Schiavo with any libel suits.
Quite true. But the more lurid allegations are that Mr. Schiavo deliberately CAUSED his wife's injuries.
This coming from someone who insinuated I would go to hell after death, all because I disagreed with his/her opinion. Yeah. Tell me about fear mongering.
99 times out of 100, the plaintiff does win in UK libel cases. The burden of proof over there is exactly the reverse of US law - there, the burden is on the defendent to prove that he/she didn't libel or otherwise defame the plaintiff. Which usually boils down to meaning that you must prove that what you said/wrote is, in fact, true.
That's today. Tomorrow may be a different story.
The ACLU is crazy, but that would require them to contradict half the lawsuits they have going on out there.
False. They routinely decline to get involved with death penalty cases for murders committed by minors because doing so winds up raising the issue of whether minors can give consent for sex or abortion. We have here the ACLU's opposition to murder coming into conflict with its favoring abortion rights and sexual emancipation for minors.
If it helps the liberal extremist cause, they'll do it.
Well, then. That explains why Al Gore didn't get a single vote in 2000.
One time a guy who ran a board accused me of libel, it was quite hilarious, he kept up the blather until I told him that I could consult any one of the cadre of lawyers I work with to examine the merits of his claim. I didn't hear much after that, he must have been too busy finding a way to grift...
A subpoena is a court order.
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.