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)
What they said had nothing to do with what they did?! hahahahaha. Recreate the roman republic in America? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! There are similarities, but also MANY differences - do I have to spell them out for you? You have already made yourself look so foolish - how can I do better?
You are a victim of your liberal revisionist education. America was corrupted but it was corrupted by secular humanists like you who are trying to rewrite our Constitution and erase God from the public domain (yet, iroinically - you supported a Chrsitian - McClintock!). You want to know why Europeans came here? Read the Mayflower Compact - it clearly says they came here for "ye glory of God and advancement of ye Christian faith" and also to escape the tyranny in Europe. You have read the Mayflower Compact haven't you - it's the first official government document in America.
God is only the judge of our spirituality. God does not run our government- our laws are created by men, enforced by men and exist for men. God is all well and good, but He does not run my government.
Our goverment was created on judeo-christian principles. I'll grant you that. But so what? We're free to change our government to reflect whatever we desire it to reflect.
You have me confused with someone else- I don't live in California. If I had, I would have voted for Arnold. I prefer winning over ideological purity.
You have read the Mayflower Compact haven't you - it's the first official government document in America
Sure, but the Mayflower Compact is not a governing document of these United States.
I can just keep stating facts, and you can just keep denying them. However, I see no quotes from you or any evidence for your claims.
God disagrees with you. For a Chrsitian, is Jesus Lord over ALL of life or just one's spiritual life? hmmm? I think your theology is hopelessly skewed as well as your history. Our founders recognized that God was sovereighn - again, READ THE DECL. OF INDEPENDENCE. - Who is the giver of rights? God NOT man. Who won the revolutionary war? According to the founders, GOD DID! Need quotes? I got em. So, you can believe what you want, but it doesn't jive with the FACTS of history.
No, you are not. The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND. We are a nation of laws not men. LEX REX. Look that up. I will not let you take away my rights - I will fight you.
That's nice. What's your point? All of your statements may be true, but what do you want to do with those statements? This country is still predominantly Christian, but that doesn't mean the rights of non-Christians aren't protected on an equal footing. Many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality (though that morality is mostly universal), but many are not. Religion is your right in the privare sphere, but we've decided to keep religion out of government and vice versa. Not sure where you're going with your argument.
Jesus is lord over my spiritual life. My material life doesn't have much to do with Jesus, one way or the other, because most of my material decisions have little do with religion.
Feel free to let God run your life. I'm secure enough in my intelligence to run my own life.
Nobody wants to take away your rights. Your paranoia is amusing, however.
You are confused. Religion is not spirituality. Religion is a set of traditions set up by men - Jesus ridiculed the traditions and religiosity of the Pharisees. Christianity is a RELATIONSHIP with God, not a set of rules.
If Jesus is not Lord over all of your life, then He isn't your Lord, becuase all of life is spiritual - all of it. Oh, I forgot - you reject biblical authority - You have your own special personal idea of Christianity that doesn't jive with anything other than your imagination.
Feel free to let God run your life. I'm secure enough in my intelligence to run my own life.
Go ahead and play God and be your own lord, but don't pretend to be a Christian while you do it. You have no authority other than your own for such a statement.
That's not what you said earlier - you agreed with AngryClam that our laws come from pagan Rome. Have you now changed your position?
Yes, many laws today are not based on Christian morality - they are based on godless humanism which leads to the erosion of freedom and slavery. But it was much different in 1776.
You are not the arbiter of my Christianity, so I would thank you to keep your snake-handling protestant views on the subject to yourself. You are no more qualified to judge my Christianity than I am to judge yours.
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.