DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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)

[cyncooper]

And this is different from the Kobe threads in what way?

Bryant is charged with a crime, so if some say they think he's guilty of something he's actually been charged with, don't YOU see the difference?

Besides, the vitriol is mostly addressed back and forth between parties who, for some reason, have decided to wed themselves prematurely to a position and can't stand a dry discussion of facts as they become known.

[NeoCaveman]

On FoxNews now the Dr. Michael Baden is speculating that Terri met with foul play.

Head injury in 1991....

[TheAngryClam]

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, as well as the National Institutes of Health would disagree with you on that one.

[NeoCaveman]

Wonder when the ACLU is going to sue him and Greta V.

[ambrose]

Palpatine,

If I had to guess, the people making the hysterical accusations are largely judgment proof. Even if they own a home, their double wide is protected by the homestead exemption. Moreover, even if a judgment could be collected against them, they would only rejoice in the opportunity to be a martyr for their cause.

There is even one poster on this forum who was represented by some dimestore outfit that makes Klayman look like a Clarence Darrow. She got her ass handed to her and has posted vanities on a semi-regular basis complaining about her plight. Yet we learn that she is still involved in other (similar) litigation.

Now we have people suing their doctors for malpractice, even though they have suffered no injuries. So much for all those complaints re frivolous lawsuits...

One of the things that most attracted me to the conservative cause was its intellectual honesty. This honesty has been crumbling over the past several years. Does anyone notice? Does anyone even care?

</ rant>

[EllaMinnow]

Some thread, huh?

Like a car crash you can't look away from.

[TheBigB]

Heh. That's kinda cute.

[TheAngryClam]

Not naming any *cough*SaundraDuffy*cough* names, are we?

[honeygrl]

he better be careful or he might get sued.

[Poohbah]

Wonder when the ACLU is going to sue him and Greta V.

Is he specifically accusing any one person of actually causing said head trauma?

[livius]

Agreed! But remember, being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry. Liberals get to say whatever they want, no consequences allowed.

Check page 43 of your manual, and you'll see that this is one of the basic ground rules of liberal discourse...

[cyncooper]

Fascinating.

I'm way behind reading, as you can see the post I replied to is WAY back from earlier. Just happened to see your ping.

[aristeides]

he better be careful or he might get sued.

Well, he might win such a suit, mightn't he?

[NeoCaveman]

Not specifically, counsellor-wanna be

[Poohbah]

Then he's bulletproof.

Gosh, this guy is using more brainpower than a lot of FReepers wish to.

[EllaMinnow]

Do you think it will hit 5000 posts before morning?

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Since when do we need a bunch of lawyers to tell us who is a public person and who is not. The mere fact that so many people know about him makes him a public figure, people who are not public figures do not go on Larry King.

[NeoCaveman]

Then he's bulletproof.

IF you say so, Alan Dershewitz.....

[honeygrl]

Yep.. I'd love to see them sue him and then him be allowed to have access to Terri's medical records to prove his claim.

[FITZ]

If I had to guess, the people making the hysterical accusations are largely judgment proof. Even if they own a home, their double wide is protected by the homestead exemption.

That in itself looks to me like slander or libel on your part. You would have no way of KNOWING if they're home is a double wide or protected by the homestead exemption --- so you've very likely put out a falsehood as fact.