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)
What allies? Does this have anything to do with that Devil's Triagle and weird theories that CP was talking about?
Is it too much to ask that you not engage in libelous speech in this case? Are you utterly incapable of being very mildly continent (i.e., not asserting specific motive to Michael Schiavo without solid proof of the allegation) on the keyboard in front of you, being careful to not let your passion run beyond your reason?
Anything other that a "yes" or "no" will be counted as a "no".
Thanks in advance.
I'm sure that any number of people a lot more powerful than Mr. Schiavo wouldn't mind FR being shut down, I just don't understand why you think he has more power to do so than anyone else. If the Clinton Administration couldn't do it, then why can he? And not all the people who were mentioned on this site with regards to the Clinton scandals were public officials. Clinton never even got Matt Drudge. As much as I would like to think otherwise, I still don't believe the ``ALLIES'' that you refer to are that bent on FR's destruction.
The American Civil Liberties Union.
You're putting on a great act.
Pretty assinine, eh?
Because there are some idiots on this board that have been handing him that power with their tendency to rant beyond the point of fact.
If the Clinton Administration couldn't do it, then why can he?
Because while FR broke no federal laws, some posters in this case have gone beyond the bounds of legal speech and into libel.
Keep up the act.
Clinton never even got Matt Drudge.
Because Drudge executed an immediate retraction.
Just keep up the act.
Technically, yes. But the 'living constitution' is becoming a Federal common law very quickly.
You're going to have to give me the quotes again, give me the post number or link to them because I don't know what you're talking about with this post without the quotes for reference.
Are you in a position with the ACLU that you can guarantee that?
Do you understand that?
I understand your words.
However, I find your words to be a frail reed to bet the existence of this website on.
VA Court Dismisses Libel Lawsuit Against Anonymous Website Author(ACLU)
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.
I'm confused.
Is this like your perpetually alleging LaBelleDameSansMerci and I were one and the same?
Or is it more like passing around electronic hearsay such as this:
Without naming names or being too specific, here is the story - PLEASE keep it under wraps for now. It is fresh, but doesn't need to go to the alternate site yet, as several people are now in the process of wrecking their real lives over this right now.
[... need I go on? ...] And it is really ugly.....
What sort of instructions for disseminating this damaging hearsay electronically would you suppose the author of the e-mail is giving here, Counselor?
Do you really expect any of us to believe you care at all about the effect of libel and slander on "the real lives" of others?
Any chance you can vacate the glass house you habit before you go throwing stones?
These are all hypothetical questions, of course ... I have no intention of returning to this Timesink wherein you're wasting the "real lives" of folks. I've read enough.
P.S. Should be "it's one thing". You'll be wanting to dot the i's and cross the t's from here on out, I suspect, lest you be hoisted on your own petard.
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.