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)

[Calpernia]

>>>I did not state they were “intellectually challenged”, but that they “lash out with emotion”. When a person allows their emotion to override their intellect the result is often a purely emotional response to a situation.

Sorry, that does make sense. I missed understood your original post that I responded to.

[jjbrouwer]

Was it really necessary to go running to Jim and the moderators about H'up? I suppose you just can't help yourself.

[Catspaw]

Was it really necessary to go running to Jim and the moderators about H'up? I suppose you just can't help yourself.

Yes.  The same poster told me on this thread in post 1003 to "butt out."  He's now attempting to drag me backinto a personal dispute between he and another freeper in for reasons known only to him.. If he can't decide for himself which it is, I will make sure that he doesn't do it again.  He and the rest of the tag team seems to be obsessed with pinging me, haranguing me and demanding answers to questions I know nothing about.  He can't control himself, so someone has to.  If that's the admin moderator and/or Jim Robinson, so be it. 

He also told Jim Robinson and Bob J to "refrain from joining in the debate," rather insulting to the owner of the forum.

Posted by harrowup to Neets; Catspaw
On The Smokey Backroom 10/24/2003 6:44 PM CDT #1,003 of 1,542

Because he knows the cut and paste artists will handle that for him.

You two clearly have not been paying attention around here for the last five years, so butt out.

To: Bob J; Jim Robinson
Posted by harrowup to Jim Robinson; Bob J
On The Smokey Backroom 10/24/2003 6:24 PM CDT #946 of 1,542

He went that-a-way and she went-this-a-way only works if nobody is watching. The last two weeks have been an orgy of self-promotion which should at last becoming self-defeating if not embarassing.

If you and Bob can't answer a simple question with a degree of credibility then perhaps you should refrain from joining in the debate.

 

[honeygrl]

Great post. :)

[honeygrl]

Yeah.. it's not nice to be a tattletale .. we are in the backroom now so no reason call the teacher.

[honeygrl]

I've been told to butt out twice on the thread (and called a bimbo!)

The best response to "butt out" is "make me." It seemed to shut onyx up anyway.

[Catspaw]

I don't want to be subject to yet another round of the tag team screaming, "answer me! answer me! I demand you answer!!" on a subject I know nothing about or care about--especially when I've been told by one of the members of the tag team to "butt out" early on the same subject. If you don't like it, TS.

And I could've hit the abuse button and done it anonymously, but I didn't. I did it openly.

This'll be my last post on this thread. You can ping me until your fingers fall off, but I don't give a damn.

[Possenti]

Chancellor Palpatine posted this to "protect" this forum (wherein he is one of the most valued and astute members) by warning all of us of the consequences of ad hominem and vicious slander.

LOL!

Yeah - and Larry Flynt's an upstanding citizen too!

One only has to look at his homepage to witness his sick, twisted view of history. He probably - ALLEGEDLY- copied it straight from the pages of Hustler.

[harrowup]

Was it really necessary to go running to Jim and the moderators about H'up? I suppose you just can't help yourself.

In 1537, the blowhard, aka catspaw, who is under the impression she is a catsmeow, printed what appears to be a parody from the LP site. I haven't been there in a bit but sadjoe made me think that someone from across the water has been having a touch of fun.

That being said, if said tunabreath isn't interested in the subject then why in the world would she present such an obvious joke on the board?

If that did appear in the biker bar then good on the folks who are getting a kick out of the CP/OPH/onyx and other cat like tuna and salmon show.

Wow! Talk about someone with delusions of relevance.

[msmagoo]

We are here posting our opinions, based on news articles, press releases and court documents. Diverse opinions on a matter of public interest are expected; sharing our opinions here is protected under the First Amendment. Unless we claim personal knowledge as a direct party to the matter of concern, our opinions are protected as part of free-wheeling, public debate. As others have stated, this is a site for sharing opinions, and while some may find some opinions offensive or possibly actionable, I agree with those who say that they are not. It goes without saying that one cannot be held liable for an opinion based on media accounts.

Furthermore, I believe that by virtue of government intervention in the matter, Michael Schaivo has become a limited public figure, whose actions are subject to criticism, or praise, as the case may be.

I personally believe Terri's Law will withstand legal challeges based on the idea that it is against public policy to allow a single Probate Court judge to hand down what can be construed as a death sentence based on hearsay evidence presented by a party (Michael Schavio) with a vested interest in seeing Terri Scavio straved to death. In every state in the U.S., death penalty cases are subject to rigorous review and numerous checks and balances along the way, prior to execution.

That Terri Schavio, an innocent disabled person, who cannot speak for herself and left no specific directive to be starved to death should she become disabled - could be put to death by a person with a financial interest in her fate, in a manner which would be considered "cruel and unusual" were it to be applied to a death row inmate - calls for, nay, DEMANDS governmental intervention and review.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that convicted murderers are entitled to due process, including appeals and judicial review, prior to the ultimate penalty (DEATH) being exacted.

Terri Schavio has been deprived of those same rights under the law, if one believes she may not want to die. Michael Schavio, Judge Greer and George Felos have attempted to carry out an execution of an innocent person through civil litigation.

I don't think you can stifle debate on this matter by saying we can only post "facts." Everything we know about this case is coming to us through the media or a third party - therefore everything being voiced here is opinion whether or not it is stated as such!

[TheAngryClam]

Where do you think that the Founders got their ideas from? It wasn't the kings in the Bible- it was PAGAN ancient Rome and PAGAN ancient Greece, just like where all Western Civilization flows from.

Even Christianity "borrowed" large portions of PAGAN ideas.

[honeygrl]

Just out of curiosity (and not trying to deflect from whatever you say to f.c because I enjoy watching) are you pagan? If so, what type of pagan?

[harrowup]

Even Christianity "borrowed" large portions of PAGAN ideas

I am familiar with The Easter Bunny & Santa Klaus, but can you tell me where The Great Pumpkin fits in and why he doesn't get more respect.

[TheAngryClam]

Not really. I'm an apostate Catholic, and, although I've met some very nice freepers who practice Asatru (Norse religion), I am not. If I ever went the full plunge, I'd join up with these people and start saying "hail Apollo!"

However, I have grown very tired of people who claim that Christianity is the wellspring of every instance of progress since its inception, and who wish to pretend that the true roots of western civilization in Greece and Rome somehow did not exist before Christianity. That irks me to no end, so I take great glee in pointing out that historical fact to those who would argue otherwise.

Once that gets done, I'll tell f.Christian that "people who don't believe in evolution should walk off the flat edge of the Earth," which I copied from another Freepers tag line.

[TheAngryClam]

Didn't that come from St. Linus?

heheh.

[harrowup]

Is it true that 'angry clams' produce humungus Black Poils?

[Notwithstanding]

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007953/posts

[Notwithstanding]

Please go to 1557 and click the link.

[Notwithstanding]

ping people to the link in 1557

[jjbrouwer]

This'll be my last post on this thread.

Promises, promises. Yeah, run away, you little snitch.