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)
Click to scroll to commentary.
DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity
Third District Court of Appeal ^ | March 28, 2003 | COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
Posted on 10/25/2003 12:22 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Next, in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783, 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986), the court found that at least where a media defendant is concerned, an actionable statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false by the plaintiff before there can be liability under state defamation law. The Hepps court limited its holding to cases involving media defendants and left open the question of the standard for non-media private defendants raising statements of public concern about public figures. n9 This is precisely the issue presented here. That is, this case raises the question of the applicable [*480] standard for an alleged defamed public official by a private defendant on matters of great public concern.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 779 n.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the absence of any direct precedent from either the United States Supreme Court or Supreme Court of Florida on this issue, I believe that at the very minimum, the standard set forth in the New York Times [**21] line of cases, requiring actual malice, must govern. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 n.6 ("prior to Hepps, . . . where public official or public figure plaintiffs were involved, the New York Times rule already required a showing of falsity before liability could result." (citations omitted)).
Since actual malice requires more than the mere publication of a falsity, I believe that footnote 6 of the majority's opinion is misplaced. The ultimate issue here is not whether Horan's statements were false, but rather whether Horan knew or "recklessly disregarded" that his statements were false. See Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 806. Thus, it is not necessary, or even desirable, for Barnes to subpoena and depose the attorneys and sitting judges in Monroe County. n10 Moreover, the results of the "opinion poll," embraced by the majority, could not reliably discern the truth or falsity of Horan's assertions regarding Monroe County's judges' and lawyers' opinions of Barnes as a lawyer and/or candidate. See, e.g., Ollman v. Evans, 242 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 750 F.2d 970, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a community's opinion of a plaintiff's stature [**22] in the community is incapable of being adjudicated with any expectation of accuracy). (Bork, J., concurring). Accordingly, I believe that such discovery is impermissible and should not be allowed to take place.
Barnes v. Horan, 841 So. 2d 472, 479-480 (Fla. App. , 2002)
==================
Foremost, we think Hepps [ Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S. Ct. 1558, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1986)] stands for the proposition that a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved. (footnote omitted) Thus, unlike the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar," the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin," would not be actionable. Hepps ensures that a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection (footnote omitted).
Next, the Bresler-Letter Carriers-Falwell [**13] line of cases provide protection of statements that cannot "reasonably (be) interpreted as stating actual facts" about an individual. Falwell, 485 U.S., at 50. This provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. See id., at 53-55.
The New York Times-Butts and Gertz culpability requirements further ensure that debate on public issues remains "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270. Thus, HN6where a statement of "opinion" on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Similarly, where such a statement involves a private figure on a matter of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the false connotations were made with some level of fault as required by Gertz.
Milkovich, 110 S. Ct. at 2707. Thus, in the instant case [**14] assuming medical costs and insurance are a subject of public concern, which we concede they are, if the statements are capable of being proved false, they are not protected.
Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla. App. , 1990)
Excerpted - click for full article ^
Source: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d01-2472.pdf
If George Jones is still alive and John Smith has never even been in the same state as George, you can not post "John Smith killed George Jones" without subjecting yourself to a defamation action.
If George Jones is still alive but John Smith is purposefully seeking to have George's respirator turned off - and the case is widely reported in the news and all three branches of government have taken action on the issue - then you can post "John Smith is a murdering SOB" on a forum that notes on every page that all posts are opinions of the authors - without fear of losing any defamation claim.
1 posted on 10/25/2003 12:22 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Quite. I clicked on CatPee's profile and she/he is apparently threatening to sue anyone who reposts her/his droppings elsewhere for copyright theft.
Some people are so precious.
He has never done any legal work for me or Free Republic.
343 posted on 10/24/2003 3:35 PM EDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
Area 51: Thanks for the vindication. I knew that there was factual evidence for my assertion that Chancellor Palpatine/One_Particular_Harbour had worked for Free Republic or was named to in some capacity.
Jim Robinson,
Forgetful or was diotoma's statement about Chancellor Palpatine/One_Particular_Harbour in this thread incorrect? Or were you simply obfuscating? It would have been more honest to tell the whole truth here.
If any other FReeper had posted this thread, this explicit threat to the conservatives on this Forum, the thread would have been deleted and that FReeper banned. Why the deference to Chancellor Palpatine/One_Particular_Harbour, one of the most vicious liberal trolls on FRee Republic?
Well one thing is for sure, according this thread It seems someone thought he was ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/615203/posts
***Unveiling... the new Free Republic Network!***
www.freerepublic.net ^ | 1/24/2002 | The FreeRepublic Network Board of Directors
Posted on 01/24/2002 3:15 PM PST by diotima
"...one_particular_harbour is serving as the Network's acting corporate attorney...."
Congratulations to everyone involved! Looking forward to many years of great accomplishments with the New Free Republic Network. Our work has just begun.
Regards,
Jim Robinson
20 posted on 01/24/2002 3:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
521 posted on 10/24/2003 4:36 PM EDT by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Here's the FACTS re this thread:
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
Click to scroll to commentary.
DEFAMATION -- LIBEL: In Florida, Plaintiff Must Prove Falsity
Third District Court of Appeal ^ | March 28, 2003 | COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
Posted on 10/25/2003 12:22 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Next, in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783, 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986), the court found that at least where a media defendant is concerned, an actionable statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false by the plaintiff before there can be liability under state defamation law. The Hepps court limited its holding to cases involving media defendants and left open the question of the standard for non-media private defendants raising statements of public concern about public figures. n9 This is precisely the issue presented here. That is, this case raises the question of the applicable [*480] standard for an alleged defamed public official by a private defendant on matters of great public concern.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 779 n.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the absence of any direct precedent from either the United States Supreme Court or Supreme Court of Florida on this issue, I believe that at the very minimum, the standard set forth in the New York Times [**21] line of cases, requiring actual malice, must govern. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 n.6 ("prior to Hepps, . . . where public official or public figure plaintiffs were involved, the New York Times rule already required a showing of falsity before liability could result." (citations omitted)).
Since actual malice requires more than the mere publication of a falsity, I believe that footnote 6 of the majority's opinion is misplaced. The ultimate issue here is not whether Horan's statements were false, but rather whether Horan knew or "recklessly disregarded" that his statements were false. See Nodar, 462 So. 2d at 806. Thus, it is not necessary, or even desirable, for Barnes to subpoena and depose the attorneys and sitting judges in Monroe County. n10 Moreover, the results of the "opinion poll," embraced by the majority, could not reliably discern the truth or falsity of Horan's assertions regarding Monroe County's judges' and lawyers' opinions of Barnes as a lawyer and/or candidate. See, e.g., Ollman v. Evans, 242 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 750 F.2d 970, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a community's opinion of a plaintiff's stature [**22] in the community is incapable of being adjudicated with any expectation of accuracy). (Bork, J., concurring). Accordingly, I believe that such discovery is impermissible and should not be allowed to take place.
Barnes v. Horan, 841 So. 2d 472, 479-480 (Fla. App. , 2002)
==================
Foremost, we think Hepps [ Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 106 S. Ct. 1558, 89 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1986)] stands for the proposition that a statement on matters of public concern must be provable as false before there can be liability under state defamation law, at least in situations, like the present, where a media defendant is involved. (footnote omitted) Thus, unlike the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones is a liar," the statement, "In my opinion Mayor Jones shows his abysmal ignorance by accepting the teachings of Marx and Lenin," would not be actionable. Hepps ensures that a statement of opinion relating to matters of public concern which does not contain a provably false factual connotation will receive full constitutional protection (footnote omitted).
Next, the Bresler-Letter Carriers-Falwell [**13] line of cases provide protection of statements that cannot "reasonably (be) interpreted as stating actual facts" about an individual. Falwell, 485 U.S., at 50. This provides assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of "imaginative expression" or the "rhetorical hyperbole" which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation. See id., at 53-55.
The New York Times-Butts and Gertz culpability requirements further ensure that debate on public issues remains "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270. Thus, HN6where a statement of "opinion" on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Similarly, where such a statement involves a private figure on a matter of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the false connotations were made with some level of fault as required by Gertz.
Milkovich, 110 S. Ct. at 2707. Thus, in the instant case [**14] assuming medical costs and insurance are a subject of public concern, which we concede they are, if the statements are capable of being proved false, they are not protected.
Florida Medical Center, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 568 So. 2d 454, 458 (Fla. App. , 1990)
Excerpted - click for full article ^
Source: http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/3d01-2472.pdf
If George Jones is still alive and John Smith has never even been in the same state as George, you can not post "John Smith killed George Jones" without subjecting yourself to a defamation action.
If George Jones is still alive but John Smith is purposefully seeking to have George's respirator turned off - and the case is widely reported in the news and all three branches of government have taken action on the issue - then you can post "John Smith is a murdering SOB" on a forum that notes on every page that all posts are opinions of the authors - without fear of losing any defamation claim.
1 posted on 10/25/2003 12:22 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
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.