DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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)

[Jrabbit]

Evidence of what? Slander? I really would like to see an example of a post that is currently not pulled that would fall under this threat.

[wimpycat]

Nobody beats Joe Hadenuf for working in their pet cause into any subject under the sun. Recipes, tupperware, you name it, he can find an illegal immigration angle into it. That takes a special talent. You can't but admire it.

[Modernman]

I think you should ask f.Christian that same question.

f.Christian---Arcane---Secular Humanism---->Evolution!

I think he has been compared in the past to an obscure, sentient computer virus.

[TheBigB]

What about my Sister and cheese? What are you saying? Don't make me sue you for libel! =P

[honeygrl]

Hah!! This thread is series and hugh!!

[ruoflaw]

gee One....where did you go and why have you changed your name?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Its in relation to the level of vitriol I noticed, along with a lot of claims that were getting wilder and wilder, some of which were starting to allege broader conspiracies. The absurdity level was high, and the content of some of the statements which were being made was stuff that would be easy grist for some lawyer's mill. heck, I've known of defamation cases which resulted in Plaintiff's verdicts on much weaker statements than the ones I saw here.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Okay, let's say I am sued for saying that Santa killed the Easter Bunny.

And, I know this isn't true. In defending myself, I would have to PROVE that the statement I made is TRUE.

Failing that, I would lose in court.

[Grando Calrissian]

It makes you EVIL. You will rot in hell for all eternity while rabid rats slowly devour your flesh and acid is dripped on your head. Once your body is dissolved it will be reformed again by Satan himself so that the process can be repeated onward into eternity.

[Modernman]

You could post something on a local dispute over trash collection, and up she'd pop with a really emphatic anti-abortion screed somewhere in the middle.

I'm a big fan of one-issue posters.

[Bikers4Bush]

Eeexcellent ghostbusters reference.

A little off from the exact quote but excellent none the less.

[R. Scott]

“…views contrary to your own sick views.”
Sick?

[concerned about politics]

Not to be picky, but the disclaimer you post does say that opinions posted here are the opinion of the poster and not FR

Yes. FR isn't writing the opinions. Posters are writing their opinions. Just like it says. All opinions. Read it.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

As someone posted earlier on this thread, even copying and pasting the offending post to this thread could cause me to be sued for libel.

No thanks. You can read the threads.

[olorin]

As I understand defamation law, your duty only kicks in once you have notice of alleged offending material. I think a good analogy can be drawn with ISPs, in that they are generally only liable if they fail to act on alleged offending material. Thus, until you received notice either internally or from some external source, neither you nor FreeRepublic LLC sould not be liable for defamation.

[honeygrl]

Man I missed the parody of him.. I may have to go hunt that down..

[Grando Calrissian]

Be careful. There might be a Mexican hiding in your bushes.

[Bikers4Bush]

Moooooooose!!!

[stands2reason]

a person who is actively involved in a public controversy

Is Michael Schiavo.

[Grando Calrissian]

Vince Klorto. Keymaster of Gozer.