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)
Where did you learn that? A humanistic revisionist university history lecture? Anyone who has researched our founders and where they got their ideas KNOWS that our ideas of law came through Hugo Grotius, Samuel de Puffendorf, William Blackstone and John Locke - ALL CHRISTIAN thinkers/writers/philosophers.
Tell me, why is Moses emblazoned all over our federal buildings? hmmm?
Have you ever heard of the Reformation? Gosh, do you think that the notions of DIVINE law (expressed as "nature's law" in the Declaration of Independence) by the founders, had an influence on the piligrims, puritans, and the Christian founding fathers? Do you supppose that God-given inalienable rights came from the Romans? The 10 commandments are the foundation of American Law and the founders said so. These commandments are emblazoned on the Supreme court building. Why is that? Why is their a mural in Congress depicting Moses? Why is a bible verse from Leviticus inscribed on the liberty bell? It seems you are the one that has some 'splainin to do.
I'm not your history teacher. Why don't you go look up Grotius, Puffendorf and Locke and read what they wrote (also Vattel). Why don't you check and see who influenced our founding fathers the most? It wasn't the Romans!
hahahahaha.
California is the land of fruits and nuts. What do you expect? The kicked God out of here a long time ago - I don't know if he was ever here. This State was founded on GREED.
If you don't believe that America was founded on judeo-Christian moral principles, then you are either ignorant or biased. If necessary, I can overwhlem you with a blizzard of quotes and facts from the founding era. Care to take up the challenge of defending your pathetic revisionist position that the United States.
The Roman system did have some influence on western society and our founders, but the bible and the Reformation had BY FAR the most influence. Was the book of Isaiah written before the roman empire? Yes. Look at this verse:
For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us. Isaiah 33:22
Looky there - the 3 branches of government!! Whadya know! Furthermore, the Roman republic was an utter FAILURE - it turned into a dictatorship because the roman senate did not truly represent the people. They were patricians. Our representative government is different than any other to precede it. Our founders read history VERY CAREFULLY and saw the horrible flaws in not only the roman system but the greek democracy as well. In Rome, the people served the State; in America the State serves the people (at least used to!).
And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. Ex. 18:25
It seems you speak out of ignorance.
In his view, no Christian writer or philospher was ever inspired in any way by non-Christians. The idea of representative democracy, constitutions, inalienable rights etc. sprung fully grown, like Athena from Zeus' brow, from Christian, and only Christian, sources. Never mind that, for centuries, a man would not be considered educated unless he was proficient in the writings of the Classical Greeks and Romans.
He makes a lot of statements against "secular humanist" universities. I wonder what kind of diploma-mill fundie college he attended. Me-thinks I hear the sour grapes of someone who didn't have the academic qualifications to get into a "secular humanist" university.
As a Jewish friend of mine said- the era of the WASP is passing in this country- they should just accept it :-)
Sounds like a king appointing officers to rule over the peasants. Ruling over someone does not equal representing them.
What's wrong with greed? The Protestant work ethic is nothing more than greed given divine rationalizations. This country is founded on greed.
The roman system never did have true representation of the people.
Still doing better than America. Check back in 300 years.
Oh I see...you love a pagan empire better than your own country. An empire that slaughtered people wholesale if they didn't worship the emperor. Hail Caesar!
And if you really think that the tripartite government came from that line of Isaiah, you're really just an idiot.
No, actually, it comes from God. God is the lawgiver, the king and the judge. All 3 branches can be entrusted to God, but not to SINFUL man - that is why we have checks and balances and do not entrust all the branches in one man. We have seen what happens when a man is all three - TYRANNY!
I'm an idiot? What does that make you? I can PROVE with quotes and facts that our nation was founded upon judeo-Christian moral principles. Would you like to try to defend the opposite position? Please say yes, so I can embarrass you!
Our founders were also influenced by the puritans (calvinists! - egad!) who gave them the ideas of (1) Christian self-government (I'll be you don't even know what that is!), and (2) depravity of mankind - of which they wrote about over and over and over again. These are purely Christiain doctrines, and they were both incorporated into our republican system. Do I have to spell out in what ways?
You are out of your league here. You should choose your battle more carefully.
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.