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)
Wrong. My rights are being eroded every day by the ACLU, bad judges, bad politicians, and unaccountable bureaucracies. Get your facts straight.
The bible is my guide, your guide is yourself. The bible says Jesus Christ is LORD of all - King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Creator and Lord over all the universe. You say He isn't. Excuse me if I believe the bible of you.
The basis of our legal system comes from Roman law, by way of Norman law, English common-law etc. Our legal system is a fusion of a lot of things. If you'd gone to law school, you would have learned about the basis of our legal system.
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
Most laws today are morality-neutral. Trying to use the Bible as a guide to what laws to pass is as foolish as using the Koran. The vast majority of laws simply do not implicate the Bible in any way. Try finding a biblical justification for our system of riparian water rights, or zoning law.
Then you do not know our history. Look up the origin of Lex Rex - do a google search. It came from Samuel Rutherford. The reason we have a Constitution is to prevent MEN from governing by FIAT or whim. It is the law of the land and no man can change it. The people can change it ONLY by amendment. Law is king. Get it?
I do tend to believe TheAngryClams theory regarding Roman influence though.
You can sincerely believe whatever you want, but you would be sincerely wrong in this case.
I stopped by the anti-war demonstration in DC on Saturday. Your statements sound just like the speakers at that rally, only they were blaming the Bush administration, the PATRIOT act, big corporations etc. Paranoia knows no ideological bounds.
That's nice. You're free to run your own life however you choose.
Have you gone to law school? If you have, then I have some questions for you. Why were our laws once derived from divine law (Blackstone), but later replaced with legal positivism (Oliver W. Holmes and Charles Evans Hughes)? Do you know what legal positivism is?
Sure, Cornell class of 2000.
Do you know what legal positivism is?
Sure, roughly, it's the belief that law derives from the sovereign and not from some greater power.
I tend to subscribe to that notion- the sovereign in the US is the people and we write our own laws.
Paranoia? I can cite court ruling after court ruling that prove my rights are being eroded. My fears are grounded in FACTS. Here are a few examples that I will bet you have no clue about:
Everson vs. Board of Education (1947)
Engel vs. Vitale (1962)
Stone vs. Graham (1980)
Edwards vs. Aguillard (1987)
Lee vs. Weisman (1992) - in this case, the court rules 5-4 against prayers at public graduations DESPITE the fact that it was proven our founders prayed at graduations and even gave sermons!! In his concurring opinion, David Souter acknowledged these historical facts, but concluded that that our founders "turned their backs" on the Constitution. HAHAHAHA. The men who WROTE, DEBATED AND RATIFIED the 1st amendment turned their backs on it. hahahahha. THIS IS FALSE! but it was used as an excuse to take away freedoms that we have had for over 200 years! Want to try to defend this? Go ahead! Watch how I take you apart.
Do you know who Blackstone was (besides being the foremost legal reference for our founding fathers)? What did he say about the origin of law?
Then throw the Constitution in the trash! That is the law of the land. If you can change it any way you want on a whim, then it isn't worth the paper it's printed on and no one's rights are secure.
Evidently, Cornell is just a liberal marxist paper mill like Hah-vahd or Beserkly.
Do you know who Blackstone was (besides being the foremost legal reference for our founding fathers)? What did he say about the origin of law?
Then throw the Constitution in the trash! That is the law of the land. If you can change it any way you want on a whim, then it isn't worth the paper it's printed on and no one's rights are secure.
Evidently, Cornell is just a liberal marxist paper mill like Hah-vahd or Beserkly.
Do you know who Blackstone was (besides being the foremost legal reference for our founding fathers)? What did he say about the origin of law?
I tend to subscribe to that notion- the sovereign in the US is the people and we write our own laws.
I don't care what you subscribe to. This isn't Cuba. Law is king in this country; specifically, the U.S. Constitution. It's the law of the land. Don't they teach you that in the marxist law schools these days? Do you believe everything you are taught or can you think for yourself? Or maybe you just think like them so you soaked it in like a grateful sponge?
If what you say is true, then throw the Constitution in the trash! That is the law of the land. If you can change it any way you want on a whim, then it isn't worth the paper it's printed on and no one's rights are secure.
Divine law, very roughly, is the belief that law comes from our Creator. Nice concept, but pretty much unworkable in the real world.
Then throw the Constitution in the trash! That is the law of the land. If you can change it any way you want on a whim, then it isn't worth the paper it's printed on and no one's rights are secure.
We the people can amend the constitution, even on a "whim."
Evidently, Cornell is just a liberal marxist paper mill like Hah-vahd or Beserkly
Where'd you go to school. Bob Jones?
You are right. A vast number of Americans are unprincipled and vote their pocketbooks rather than moral principle. I vote moral principle and ONLY moral principle. Party affiliation means NOTHING to me except that I believe the Democrat Party to be EVIL - just read their platform - they are for killing unborn babies, destroying the 5,000 year old traditional family, not to mention they are secular humanist/socialist who want to make us all subservient to the federal government (slaves), and who want to make our government subservient to the United Nations. In my opinion, the Democrat Party is evil through and through and I wouldn't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances as anyone who claims allegiance to that party has a moral screw loose somewhere.
I didn't ask you that. I asked you about Blackstone. Why was he the foremost legal reference before 1890? Huh? Why were his ideas replaced by the ideas of humanists like Holmes and Hughes? Answer the question.
We the people can amend the constitution, even on a "whim."
Do you call 3/4 majority a whim? How many amendments are there in total? My point is that NO JUDGE can change it on a whim but that is precisely what they are doing! I say, IMPEACH BAD JUDGES NOW.
Where'd you go to school. Bob Jones?
Evidently, I didn't learn what I learned from going to the liberal pieces of revisionist crap they call universities today. I do my own research and reading.
Ah, the rationalizations of someone who probably didn't have the academic credentials to get into a good school.
I'd still be curious to see where you went to school, but whatever.
I vote ONLY for Christians, just as John Jay said we should do. Libertarians (most of them) believe that man is basically good, so their philosophy is wrong at the foundational level. I can't vote for a libertarian for this reason.
What makes a school a good school? Is it prestige or substance? All universities are about the same in substance - only the names are exalted. All you have to do is look at the crap that comes out of the most prestigious universities to see that. I'll tell you this: I have never been turned down by any school, and I graduated with a B.A. from an accredited university summa cum laude.
One does not have to attend a university to learn, however. Anyone with a thirst for knowledge can go to the public libraries and educate themselves to a high level.
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.