Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]
Florida Bar Association ^

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)


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,761-1,774 next last
To: Paul Ross
Won't there be a disclaimer slapped on the movie?
21 posted on 10/24/2003 10:34:59 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (You may forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; Jim Robinson
Palpatine is making an obvious effort to cool speech here at FR since the death cultists have been knocked on their heels.

And since many FReepers know Palpatine is a lawyer hiding behind that screen name, this threat takes on much larger proportions, and should be countered.

This kind of legal terrorism should not be tolerated. Palpitine is extracting his revenge for the will of the people trumping judicial and lawyerly activism.

This is one of the most vile attempts at censorship I've ever witnessed here.

22 posted on 10/24/2003 10:35:46 AM PDT by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ckca
So that gives you guys free reign to post whatever you want, when you want rather you have the facts or not because you can stand behind Jim saying he would never divulge private information?

What a bunch of misguided people there are on here if they feel they can say anything they want and stand behind Jim's statement so he takes the fall not you. BTW, all we have is your say on what Jim said and I have no doubt under most circumstances he would protect the identity of Freepers! That said, there are circumstances where I can see he would cooperate with law enforcement!

Freepers better watch what they post about the President or anyone under USSS protection because Jim or no one else is ever going to stand by and let those statements stand and protect the people that said them!

Don't you think that posting outrageous statements while hiding behind a screen name is childish and not worthy of this site or Jim's support of Freepers. Why would anyone want to put Jim in jeopardy by posting their suppositions as facts and letting their feelings get in the way of actual facts when they don't even know the people involved?



23 posted on 10/24/2003 10:38:06 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ckca; Chancellor Palpatine
You working for the ACLU or Attny Felos himself?


7 posted on 10/24/2003 10:22 AM PDT by ckca





That's right, insult the messenger and ignore the message.
You're a real beaut!

OBVIOUSLY, Chancellor Palpatine posted this to "protect" this forum (wherein he is one of the most valued and astute members) by warning all of us of the consequences of ad hominem and vicious slander.
24 posted on 10/24/2003 10:39:20 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dead
Wrongo. Reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity gets you there too.
25 posted on 10/24/2003 10:40:04 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
I'm 6'3", 230 pounds, healthy, and I hit back. Hard.

A lawsuit is much more frightening than a fist fight and can lead to much more long-term damage.

26 posted on 10/24/2003 10:40:23 AM PDT by Modernman ("I'm just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe."- Jango Fett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dead
That is incorrect. It is defamation per se to call someone a murderer, whether you know it is false or not.
27 posted on 10/24/2003 10:41:10 AM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Read later.
28 posted on 10/24/2003 10:41:57 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
C'mon, Chancellor...this is a pantload and you know it. If Schiavo wants to sue anyone, he'd better get busy. Cause I guarantee there are hundreds of thousands of sites and posters throught the net saying the same things. I think he's a lying, murderous bastard. There, I said it again. No action will be taken against me nor FR and everyone knows it. If Jom wishes to pull my statements, he can.
29 posted on 10/24/2003 10:42:02 AM PDT by TheBigB (Remember ladies...spandex is a privilege, not a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Jim Robinson has stated in the past that even if under subpoena he would NEVER reveal identifying confidential information about individual FReepers.

How about under a court order? That's quite different from a subpoena.

I'd hope that the individual FReepers involved in such a situation would have the intengrity to break their anonymity, rather than rely on Jim's going to jail to protect them.

30 posted on 10/24/2003 10:42:29 AM PDT by Modernman ("I'm just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe."- Jango Fett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: onyx
OBVIOUSLY, Chancellor Palpatine posted this to "protect" this forum (wherein he is one of the most valued and astute members) by warning all of us of the consequences of ad hominem and vicious slander.

Libel.

Slander is spoken word, libel is written word.

31 posted on 10/24/2003 10:42:33 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Thanks. I am NOT a lawyer.
32 posted on 10/24/2003 10:43:23 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
So that gives you guys free reign to post whatever you want

Feel free to post here any libel or slander I have ever posted re Michael Schiavo. Regardless, its not libel to call a man a murderer and and an adulterer who...is a (attempted) murderer and adutlerer.

You fail to see that this is not about libel or slander.

This is about a FReeper who is a lawyer and using the law and Jim Robinson's website to attempt to silence those who have by their activism defeated his agenda.

He despises them and is attempting to extract revenge on them, which is reprehensible, far moreso than anything any FReeper has said about Terri's husband.

Open you eyes.

33 posted on 10/24/2003 10:44:13 AM PDT by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Thanks. I am NOT a lawyer.

Blame it on one semester of media law I took waaaay back when.

34 posted on 10/24/2003 10:44:29 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

BTTT
35 posted on 10/24/2003 10:44:45 AM PDT by StriperSniper (All this, of course, is simply pious fudge. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Take heed folks - hiding behind screennames will not defeat a Federal subpoena.

No way in hell Shiavo would sue - it would open him up to discovery.

36 posted on 10/24/2003 10:45:07 AM PDT by dirtboy (Now in theaters - Howard Dean as Buzz Lightweight - taking the Dems to Oblivion and Beyond in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
I wish you had the means to edit my error! :)
37 posted on 10/24/2003 10:46:11 AM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Wrongo. Reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity gets you there too.

Well hell, if that is the case you should have been wherever "there" is a long tome ago.

38 posted on 10/24/2003 10:46:23 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer; MarMema
Take a gander at this.
39 posted on 10/24/2003 10:46:33 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Wrongo. Reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity gets you there too.

There is enough evidence in print (true or false) to lead one to speculate reasonably in the case of Michael Shiavo. It is not the job of any free citizen to independently check out every story they read in print.

You can no more be sued for calling Schiavo a murderer than you can be sued for calling Clinton a rapist.

40 posted on 10/24/2003 10:46:51 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,761-1,774 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson