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 don't think that is quite right. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that your statement was false. Truth is an absolute defense.
Of course there is. I paid him to do a little landscaping job.
Maybe the Chancellor is looking for a job. Maybe he's so upset at the way the Schiavo case has gone and so worried about FR that maybe you need a lawyer to monitor and delete any questionable posts. For your protection of course Jim ;-)
I'm assuming it's because people suspect ulterior motives. Many folks on this thread have brought up the "Clinton is a rapist/Ted Kennedy is a murderer/Clinton had Vonce Foster Killed" examples, and we've never seen him chime in with any warning then. It's only now, when it is an issue that he is at great odd with the vast majority of FReepers that he brings this up.
Yes. Read the bottom of the page. All posts are opinions.
The articles posted are the press, and protected under copy right laws, including the name of the author who wrote it.
Yuppers--had me on the floor....and then CP weighed in with his LP parody in #190. I just lost it.
Now you're being accused of intimidation by letting people know that they can get into legal trouble if they screw up.
So far, the only conclusion I can draw from this thread is that some people here think that libel law could never apply to them because they firmly believe whatever they say here.
The only reason this thread has generated this much controversy is because you're perceived to be on the "pro-death" side of the Schiavo story, and they don't want to hear legal cautions from you. However, had this same post been made from an attorney who had been outspoken on the other side of that issue, I suspect the thread would have been much less controversial.
Regardless, if anyone thinks that they can't be held liable for posting something at this website, they're wrong. It hasn't happened yet, and it probably won't happen in this case, but it could. It could also happen on any other thread involving any other topic.
Yes. The Evil Emperor. Kinda telling isn't it?
And "Godless Secular Humanist" is a term of endearment?
Nobody beats Joe Hadenuf for working in their pet cause into any subject under the sun.
I see your Joe Hadenuf and raise you a Kevin Curry and the drug war.
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.