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)
I can see that to a certain extent, but mostly because a rock is a pretty, uh, concrete example. But some states might consider actionable things that other states wouldn't think to. For example, laws against (so-called) excessive noise, or (so-called) pollutants, or whatever. I could be doing something in my state that's perfectly legal here, but someone over the border could object and claim that I caused harm to him. And in that instance, it seems I'd be subject to the laws of his state.
Beats the hell out of me. I actually have no dog in this fight. Wanna bet we'll get up to post 500?
http://www.whiteo.com/practice.html - a law firm with verdicts
http://www.jackscamp.com/news/Case%20Summ.%20-%20VA%20S.C.PDF - Virginia damages and ratings sweeps
1. SKINNER V. TRIDENT MEDICAL CENTER, LLC. The dispute in this Berkeley County case arose when an office manager at the medical facility where the plaintiff used to work accused him of stealing equipment and sabotaging the office. Once those allegations spread in the community, the plaintiff found it impossible to find work as a doctor. The jury awarded the doctor $30 million on his defamation claim - including $10 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff also pressed a conversion claim over a patient list the hospital failed to return to him. The jury awarded $250,000 on that claim. (Defamation/Conversion). - South Carolina
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00471/004989/title/subject/topic/government%20law_contracts/filename/governmentlaw_3_8 - Maryland business defamation 7 figure award
http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/liability/part3.html - Defamation and the internet
What was the FReeper name of this individual?
Trial by combat- there was a great picture in my civpro book showing the procedure in Norman England where the plaintiff was put in a hole up to his shoulders, while the defendant was given a club. If the plaintiff was able to get out of the hole while being clubbed, he won the case.
Kind of like a securities class action, now that I think about it.
Click this link to find the email addresses for those companies who hate the Reagan Legacy so much that they would consider supporting CBS's Lib'ral Bashing of the Greatest POTUS in MY Lifetime!!
Tell 'em yer gonna boycott them...then follow through, telling all your friends, families, and co-workers to do the same!!
FReegards...MUD
BTW...the guilty parties are as follows: Blockbuster, Pontiac, Visa, Target, Reebok, Dr Scholls, Doritos (Frito Lay), Ericsson, Chevy, United Airlines, Budweiser, Monster.com, American Express, Brita water, Royal Caribbean, Gillette, Lean cuisine, Jack in the Box, Corona, and Saturn!!
Jim may not; but not all of us were/are transparent on this board. Nor did all of us think we would need to be.
When Palpatine used to post under the screen name One_Particular_Harbour, I seem to remember him stating that he had done legal work for Jim Robinson and FRee Republic.
That is something that should be widely known regarding this thread and its implicit threat of lawsuit against any FReeper criticizing Michael Schiavo and the lack of any substitive refutation of this blatant attempt to silence FReepers by the administrators.
This is reprehensible.
Fortunately, I'm 100% judgement proof (as ALL conservative activists should be--ask your lawyer and CPA how to do it!), and when Chancellor Palpatine subpoenas Jim Robinson's ISP and post records for his own lawsuit against fellow FReepers he can take this into account in my regard.
Get out your blue books.....
The Admin Mod here didn't fail me; this site is operated better than any I have ever visited and IMO the arrogance of some who fly false colors serves more to breed discord than the heated give-and-take and they ought to leave the administration of it to those who own it and have an ongoing interest in its integrity and success.
Having read all of this thread and weighing the comments, it would seem the majority opinion is that your intentions in posting this vanity were selfish rather than selfless, judicial rather that judicious.
If said FReeping actually occurs after subpoenas go out...you're going to find that the judicial branch is not noted for its sense of humor. They're actually, in my opinion, rather stuffy about such things.
Anybody going to sue me for calling this post stupid???
Opinions regarding someone's utterances or writings are not actionable.
If someone came onto this board and stated that "So-and-so is a murderer," identifying you by your real-world name, I'd be one of the folks telling you to sue the poster and hold him to account for his libel.
Can you prove it isn't stupid???
No, because that's a qualitative opinion, and is not provable.
Can you prove that the poster isn't trying to intimidate the posters at the Free Republic???
It is impossible to prove a negative in formal logic. That is why the state bears the burden of proving the accused guilty; that is why the defendant in a libel case NOT involving a public figure bears the burden of proving that their statements were factually true.
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.