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)
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.
No, I didn't realize that. How would I go about verifying that?
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!
OK. Scratch the "chat" part of my last post. LOl. No chatting. Got it!
thanks for reminding me of a mind-numbing experience.
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.
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.
Given the assertions made on the thread, I think it's a fair question, under the circumstances.
Are you Palpatine's footman?
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.
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.
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.
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.