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 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,761-1,774 next last
To: exmarine
First. My statement that repeated publication of a false statement can be defamation is exactly correct. You can call it BS all you want, but don't rely on that for your defense, cause it ain't one.

Second, if it is evil, you should follow your own advice and call it that. For example, stating that a judge took a bribe when you have zero knowledge that it has occurred would obviously be "bearing false witness," would it not?

Third, as far as your moral comparison goes, I have an easy time distinguishing between a doctor who kills a person and a doctor who stops trying to save a person. If there were no such difference, we'd have a CPR marathon going on all over the country with no end in sight.

661 posted on 10/24/2003 2:23:31 PM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
You do realize that atleast half (if not much more than that) of the people posting on this thread don't even post the the Schiavo threads, right?

No, I didn't realize that. How would I go about verifying that?

662 posted on 10/24/2003 2:23:39 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
Yes, I agree, "The plaintiff has the burden of proof, not the defendant."

and he "would would have to prove that X was in fact a murderer"
663 posted on 10/24/2003 2:23:45 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell; RJayneJ


That 2000 election will gaul all democrats, eternally. They never had an election unstolen on them before.

325 posted on 10/24/2003 3:28 PM EDT by F.J. Mitchell (The war on drugs is a tax-payer financed affirmative action program for drug dealers.)



Bump!

664 posted on 10/24/2003 2:24:02 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl ("2 years: tyrannies defeated, nations rescued, millions of people liberated..46 mill." Rummy, 10/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
conservative principles and the elimination of government corruption and abuse. This is a news and information site not a chat room.

OK. Scratch the "chat" part of my last post. LOl. No chatting. Got it!

665 posted on 10/24/2003 2:24:08 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Have you donated to the Salvation Army? Liberals HATE Christian organizations! Tax deductable, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
your deposition would go like this -

thanks for reminding me of a mind-numbing experience.

666 posted on 10/24/2003 2:24:20 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
The post I was making gets to both liability and damages - people spreading wild statements on the internet as fact without checking them out or having firsthand knowlege, followed by phone calls, emails and faxes (many of which were based on or even contained portions of those wild tales) to the governor and legislators of Florida, who used that information to act in a manner contrary to the legal rights and interests of Michael Schiavo. That doesn't even mention the effect of the bad info bandied about regarding Felos, Greer, experts, conspiracies, UFOs and the Devil's Triangle.
667 posted on 10/24/2003 2:24:35 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
"The bottle ain't to blame and I ain't trying to. It don't make you do a thing, it just lets you."

- Mike Cooley
668 posted on 10/24/2003 2:25:16 PM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Where are you? You're sorely missed!
669 posted on 10/24/2003 2:25:22 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Third, as far as your moral comparison goes, I have an easy time distinguishing between a doctor who kills a person and a doctor who stops trying to save a person. If there were no such difference, we'd have a CPR marathon going on all over the country with no end in sight.

Removing a feeding tube is not "letting someone day" - it is FACILITATING that death. Without removal of the tube, the person would live. Personally, I am disgusted by all of the people who believe that starving that poor woman to death is all right.

670 posted on 10/24/2003 2:25:39 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: Warren_Piece
Guess my problem is that I wasn't involved in those threads (by choice!). After the Recall, I had enough flame wars to last for a long time.

When I came to this thread, it just seemed obvious that this was something we should consider when posting. Like others have stated, the DemocRATs would love to shut this forum down and you can bet so would the ACLU, and I figure why take a chance -- make responsible posts and not have to worry! I have used IMO or IMHO a lot -- seems like a safe bet to me!

Didn't come on here with any preconceived ideas of what side anyone was on -- now I am really glad that I stayed away from those threads except to say that what was said about Jeb was wrong and that was after he signed the order.
671 posted on 10/24/2003 2:26:35 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
You've never once had a single insightful or cogent point. Everything you write is consumed with intense hatred and meanness. I have told you by Freepmail that we have utterly nothing to say to one another. Please do not post to me again.
672 posted on 10/24/2003 2:27:41 PM PDT by Lazamataz (I am the extended middle finger in the fist of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
First. My statement that repeated publication of a false statement can be defamation is exactly correct. You can call it BS all you want, but don't rely on that for your defense, cause it ain't one.

Actually, I don't give a flip about this quibble. You may be right, I really don't care.

Second, if it is evil, you should follow your own advice and call it that. For example, stating that a judge took a bribe when you have zero knowledge that it has occurred would obviously be "bearing false witness," would it not?

Starving that woman to death is evil. Period. Sue me.

673 posted on 10/24/2003 2:27:57 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Are you - or were you - Al Haig?
674 posted on 10/24/2003 2:28:00 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
What, are you taking a poll of some sort?

Given the assertions made on the thread, I think it's a fair question, under the circumstances.

Are you Palpatine's footman?

675 posted on 10/24/2003 2:28:04 PM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
A quick look at TOS shows your post is giving them erections.
676 posted on 10/24/2003 2:28:44 PM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Everyone is posting their thoughts. That's what the disclamer says. I'm not advocating slash and burning other thoughts. Heck, you'd probably get banned, but thoughts are the opinions of the posters. This is a member conversation. If you wish to join in, it's your option. If you don't like the thoughts and opinions posted, don't read them. You come here volentarily. It's private - for members only.

Ok, I'm not even entirely sure what you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand you to be saying that every single post on FR is opinion, and thus not subject to a defamation lawsuit. That couldn't be more wrong.

Suppose you were to post something to the effect of "I saw Bill Clinton shoot 15 old ladies yesterday." You would be making an assertion of fact, not an opinion. Clinton could then (sadly) sue you for defamation. Suppose it got picked up by Fox news and reported as "FR poster 'concerned about politics' reported on the FR website today that he saw Bill Clinton shoot 15 old ladies yesterday." They would be reporting that you made an assertion of fact. The disclaimer about everyone's opinions being their own will not save you. Do you get it now.

677 posted on 10/24/2003 2:29:00 PM PDT by olorin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"Removing a feeding tube is not "letting someone day" - it is FACILITATING that death. Without removal of the tube, the person would live."

Removing a [heat/lung machine] is not "letting someone day" - it is FACILITATING that death. Without removal of the [machine], the person would live.

Same thing.

678 posted on 10/24/2003 2:29:24 PM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
They can’t think of what to say, so they lash out with emotion.

There are many times I have written something five and six times before posting for that very reason. First reactions may not be what you want posted.

679 posted on 10/24/2003 2:29:34 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
It seems he's still offering pro bono legal advice, but to a larger group now. (the whole forum) :)
680 posted on 10/24/2003 2:30:15 PM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 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