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 will agree that there have been threats against Michael Schiavo's well being and that many have accused him of criminal activity. Most of them were made due to an emotional case with anger driving them. Does that make them right? Well not the threats as we have no right to threaten someone's life. That is criminal. Can we make accusations? Not if we can't prove them. But, I am wondering, when did speculation become a crime?
So, while the warning may be necessary as Schiavo's team has garnered some "major league" support from those who the majority here openly declare as the enemy, I seriously, and I mean seriously, question the motive for CP posting this. He/she has made some pretty seemingly heartless posts in the Terri threads.
IF CP TRULY has the welfare of Free Republic, Jim Robinson, and the posters here at heart, he/she has certaily taken his/her time to make this warning. IF CP is an attorney I would seriously question his/her ethics. I liken this late warning to that of him/her knowing that a house is on fire and allowing someone to go into that house then telling them of the fire after they are already inside. OTOH, some may say better late than never.
I will most certainly take responsibility for anything and everything that I have said concerning this case.
I think it has started to happen. What can we do about it? If identities are being tracked/recorded/noted, anything we have posted up to this point is fair game. What are the suggestions?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Lawyer - "From where?"
Here on FR, Terri's fight, and some other places in cyberspace."
FOX news and Terri's parents website.
Are you OneParticularHarbour or not? It is a fair question, as you are speaking about people hiding behind screen names. It is quite germaine to this discussion, considering the thread somebody posted about OPH doing legal work for FR network.
If you are OPH, and hiding it, and posting this, through the cover of a different persona, it highly affects the signifigance of your posting.
So, what gives? If you are just participating in threads, it's a different animal, but here, your identity is crucial. I don't think you can duck this one anymore.
Is Palpatine and OPH the same person? Yes or no?
Why is this so hard for Freepers to compehend? You and others are trying to warn them and they keep insisting on their rights and that CP has an agenda! Makes me wonder what is their agenda?
Do I need a tag for this?
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.