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)
"If I'm wrong nothing happens. We go to jail peacefully, quietly; we'll enjoy it. But if I'm right...and we can stop this thing...Lenny...you will have saved the lives...of millions of registered voters."
Nobody can beat me at Ghostbusters quotes. Nobody. :)
That's funny on several levels, LOL!
Wait for a sign from Gozer the Traveler; he will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Voldrani, the Traveler came as a large and moving Tor. Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Machetrik Supplicants, they chose a new form for him -- that of a Giant Slor! Many Shevs and Zuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths the Slor that day I can tell you!
I thought it was a comment about his clothes.
"Ray's gone bye-bye, Egon. What've you got?"
your deposition would go like this -
Plaintiff's Lawyer - "According to our records, a computer located at your address logged into Free Republic at X time on October X, 2003. Was that you?"
You - "Yes" [note - you could try to bareface it, but you'd get nailed]
Lawyer - "You said x, y and z on that date. Were those facts known personally to you, or did you hear them from another source?"
You - "I didn't know them personally, I heard them on the internet".
Lawyer - "From where?"
Here on FR, Terri's fight, and some other places in cyberspace."
Lawyer - "do you still possess this machine, and where is it located?"
You - "Um, yeah, its at home."
Lawyer "Will you agree now to allow us to inspect it to determine which emails you sent and which websites you visited, or will you force us to get an order?" [note - this order will be granted. Also, you only think you're deleting stuff]
And on, and on for about 4 hours. They'll know who you talked to, emailed, freepmailed, whether you communicated with Florida politicians and activists, levels of coordination, all while zipping back to how you knew your statements to be true.
Oh yeah, you'll get your day in court, alright.
"...what a lovely singing voice you must have"
That disclaimer is definitely posted on the FR website. There I just made a statement of fact. If I was to say "that statement is nowhere to be found on the FR website," I would also be making a statement of fact, albeit a false one. The disclaimer you rely on is not ironclad, and it isn't even unambiguous. I'm not sure how you can argue with a straight face that FR posters are incapable of making assertinos of fact in their postings.
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.