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)
Heh, nah. Just random dumb luck. In threads this big, I just bounce around in them skimming 50-post chunks trying to find a section Where It All Makes Sense.
I'm still looking. :)
Is it not a sad day when we have to root for the Democrats to filibuster one our President's big proposals?
Then just ignore the thread and keep on with what you were doing.
That's political speech.
Well he may yet. If he gets the new law overturned and once Terrie is dead he may sue them based on the fact that his "good name" has been ruined. From everything I have read the new law will more than likely be declared unconstitutional whether we like it or not. Once that happens he would appear to have a pretty strong case and the ACLU would encourage such suits just to keep any future families, groups or individuals from being too outspoken in the future. You don't have to have judgments levied against you to be financially ruined. Also for those Texas freepers that feel they are "judgment proof"...don't count on it. Your home is only protected while you own it. If you sell it that money becomes attachable.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the statement again. Nevermind, I'll post 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......blah, blah blah.
Granted, that statement doesn't give posters blanket immunity from libel lawsuits, but it is worded a tad stronger than the fragmented excerpt you quoted and could possibly resonate well with a jury basically sympathetic to free speech.
Schiavo might possibly be sufficiently vindictive to file a couple of harrassing lawsuits against the most vituperative FReepers if he can find a law firm willing to risk representing him on a contingency basis in such a long shot suit, but I seriously doubt anyone is in peril of losing a home or livilihood over this minor tempest in an internet teapot.
I predict with a fair amount of confidence that common sense will prevail on both sides of the controversy, and if not, on the part of the courts. This is after all only an internet political forum, and these sites are well known for almost comical outburts of temporary emotional excess which are only taken seriously by those unfamiliar with the genre. It's not like someone bought a quarter page in the NY Times to make unfounded accusations. As for my opinion of my own vulnerability to litigation, I can only say I expect to sleep the unworried sleep of a guileless infant tonight.
That is exactly what the ACLU does. Now, I saw a lot of freepers wanting to sue the town council that labeled FR a hate site. IN FACT, they are being sued. Now, if you take that and put the Terrie threads and some of the comments made on them in the context of that suit, how would the lawyers for the city council use those comments in their defense?
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.