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)
Step away from the Simpsons references, sir.
CP mentioned that one respondent used the escrow account for the title insurance company she worked for.
Over a megabuck went bye-bye, IIRC.
That scammer was probably saying, "Holy cow! FIRST ROUND IS ON ME, LADS!"
Oooooh, that was fun!!! I feel so much better now.
He lost in the Florida issue, and is being spiteful here, not trying to "save" FR.
If he wanted to do that, he would have posted a primer on how to couch one's language to not run afoul of libel laws. He did nothing of the sort. He posted a threat to those who supported Terri that they were going to get busted if they didn't knock it off.
Again, he never did this with Kobe, with Clinton, with Hillary, only due to this case in which he has a vested interest. Jim isn't the issue here. FR isn't the issue. Chancy is.
What if they have a living will calling for that? What then?
Heck, I don't hide behind a screen name, so here goes...
bill clinton (i42) and his concubine (97) are trailer trash, pond scum sucking socialist, that love extra rights for homosexuals, abortion on demand, and loathe the military. They are seditionist and traitors whom hate all this country was founded on.
Any questions?
5.56mm
Just wanted to go on the record.
5.56mm
People are allowed to form opnions based upon the knowledge they have collected from various sources and apply that knowledge where they see fit. If everyone had to preface that by say, I believe, IMO we would have the courts system tied up with just slander and libel cases, and we would have created a whole new industry for the thought police.
Personally I think this should have been brought out a long time ago. Since I was not a participant in those threads, I have only heard how bad they were, but I do know from other threads that Freepers have crossed the line from time to time. Why put Jim and FR in jeopardy for the sake of an agenda or argument?
The statement by Jim as follows cannot be lost in all of this rhetoric:
To: Poohbah
I've said that I will fight any subpoena to the best of my ability. I've also said that I'm not going to protect anyone who makes really stupid or illegal statements, ie, threats of violence or really vicious personal attacks, etc, that we don't want here anyway. I recommend not posting anything that will possibly result in a lawsuit or potentially a jail term.
251 posted on 10/24/2003 2:00 PM CDT by Jim Robinson
Only if Schiavo is declared to be a public person--and that is not guaranteed.
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.