Watch out for people like this. They try to invite you to see their briefs. But, faster than you can say Cum Laude, they are at ya like a snake.
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)
Watch out for people like this. They try to invite you to see their briefs. But, faster than you can say Cum Laude, they are at ya like a snake.
Nothing but the sound of chirping crickets.... The silence is deafening.
Since the jury found OJ Simpson innocent ---- if someone alleges that he deliberately CAUSED his ex-wife's injuries then can OJ sue them for slander or libel? Same with Scott Peterson, since no court of law yes yet decided on his innocence or guilt ---- can he sue someone who suggests he murdered Laci?
You do so amuse me with all that fulmination and bluster, pounding it out on your keyboard for some type of sexual release.
Oh my goodness - this is a joke, right?
And why won't you answer the question?
Are things back to normal now?
Nope. He was trying to present himself as anything BUT fly-by-night
Of course, but usually the more legitimate they try to appear, the less they seem. I love it when they add a ``III''' to their name.
Ann Coulter has a doll out. Now Chancy does too!
I am very sorry to hear that. This sounds like a case tailor-made for loser-pays. You were just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did he have an attorney?
I'm going to sign off now, but if you need an answer to your question, I've supplied you with four handy answers to the question you and others have asked me repeatedly. Just cut and paste to your heart's content:
1. Because I don't know what you're talking about.
2. Because I don't know what you're talking about.
3. Because I don't know what you're talking about.
4. Because I don't know what you're talking about.
Typical lawyer. You have no idea what the answer is, yet you argue a side most vociferously. Is it just the principle of one shark defending another? Professional courtesy?
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.