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)
That was the really bizarre thing. He was trying to present his outfit as a bigtime holding company. But when you started poking into the holdings, you kept seeing the same name over and over. His schtick was to only aim the holdings to specific marketing niches--natural foods to a mailing list he got from vitamin and nutritional supplement companies, alternative energy companies to a Sierra Club list, et cetera. Nobody saw the whole picture.
Do you think "sexually harrassing" a woman through Freepmail should not be taken seriously?
But the real reason behind this thread tonight is to control the debate by a person who has been "anti- freepers helping Terri" from the get go. Let's not pretend it is anything other than that. People who are risk adverse and manipulative will control the debate by any means necessary. Even making false accusations, like the atuhor of this thread has done. Show me who here can be held for slander or libel. Don't give me generalizations, give me proof.
These are empty threats. If Free Republic falls apart because of what has gone on in this case, then the entire internet will be closed down. I have faith that Jim can take the heat and the pressure brought to bear upon him by the liberals who may want to see him ruined. He doesn't impress me to be the type of person who runs from empty threats. I have faith in Jim that he knows what types of legal trouble he could get in for moderating a site that allows all kinds of people to weigh in on such emotional topics as life and politics.
As for me, I think your legal advice is mumbo jumbo. I will lob as many verbal hand grenades as I see fit when my family or my country are at stake. I do not call names , like some here, but that is because I am a lady. But do not think for a moment I will stop talikng about what is important to me because you don't like what I have to say.
Thanks ---- then it seems like this whole thread is a waste of time --- it clearly states everything is an opinion by the poster. We're covered.
I can't--I have no standing in this case. Schiavo might be able to do so, particularly some of the more over-the-top posters who've stated as fact that he is motivated by ______________ (fill in the blank with an odious motive).
Assuming he could find an attorney to do it. Most attorneys would advice against it, but if they did proceed they'd make him pay for it. Which I assume he was unwilling to do.
No, it says that OPINIONS posted are not those of the management. It does not say that everything posted here is an opinion.
Opinions are not actionable, anyway. But not everything posted here is an opinion.
If I look out the window and then post, "It's night time," that's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact. It may be true or false. (In this case, it's true at the time I'm posting this).
Ok, now what do I win for the ultimate flamestarter?
How about one of those freeper mugs once they figure out what put on it?
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.