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 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,761-1,774 next last
To: AppyPappy
Amway.
681 posted on 10/24/2003 2:30:25 PM PDT by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I will tell you this. If I was the doctor in question, I would have REFUSED the order of that judge. What can the judge do if he can't find a doctor to take the tube out? Maybe he could do the deed himself perhaps?
682 posted on 10/24/2003 2:30:42 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
even a Raider fan

OMG! That's just plain mean.

683 posted on 10/24/2003 2:31:03 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Wasn't it up to the governor and legislators to be sure of the facts? I doubt they made their decision based on "wild tales" and bad info. And just because you feel they acted in a manner contrary to Michael Schiavos' legal rights and interests doesn't make it so. It's just your opinion-right?
684 posted on 10/24/2003 2:31:21 PM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Nice way to avoid an easy question.

By the way - is it "good" or "evil" to howl 'BS' about something you neither know nor care about?

685 posted on 10/24/2003 2:31:32 PM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
>>>>those who resort to threats and name calling do so from intellectual frustration. They can’t think of what to say, so they lash out with emotion.

That is not a fair statement. Many that are very intellectual are also very emotional. Some can't control emotions. That doesn't mean they are intellectually challenged.
686 posted on 10/24/2003 2:31:35 PM PDT by Calpernia (Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Please look at #648 and you will see the answer!
687 posted on 10/24/2003 2:31:51 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
For so many reasons, I am glad you are not a doctor.
688 posted on 10/24/2003 2:32:29 PM PDT by lugsoul (And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Couldn't refute the charge then could you!?!?!

Hah! Caught in your lifelong series of lies and deceit and miscalculations and buffoonery!

Perhaps your years of chicanery and gross distortions are finally nearing an end. What a glorious day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

689 posted on 10/24/2003 2:32:36 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
Are you Palpatine's footman?

No, I'm his accountant.

690 posted on 10/24/2003 2:32:48 PM PDT by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase; Chancellor Palpatine
A quick look at TOS shows your post is giving them erections.

You mean they've finally found something that stimulates them out of their torpor?

691 posted on 10/24/2003 2:32:50 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase; Catspaw
I figured as much. I've always suspected that a few of them have a bottle of Jergens and a box of Kleenex handy for their little cut and paste sessions of FR threads.
692 posted on 10/24/2003 2:33:06 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
>>>Not at all. I was speaking hypothetically regarding something he said

You didn't disclaimer your post. You are normally very careful with your words. you also made that comment as your opening and closing. I find your hypothetical disclaimer hard to buy.
693 posted on 10/24/2003 2:33:07 PM PDT by Calpernia (Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Lookee - you got 666...
694 posted on 10/24/2003 2:33:52 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Are you - or were you - Al Haig?

674 posted on 10/24/2003 2:28 PM PDT by Grando Calrissian [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

------------------------

No Iam not. But Al Haig got bit by a moose while peeking in the window at my sister, while eating a block of Green Colby Cheese.

The BASTARD!

Disclaimer: This was a fictional accounting of a nightmare I had of a real life experience I may have encountered in another life.

695 posted on 10/24/2003 2:34:15 PM PDT by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
I wanted it for my call to Ambrose.
696 posted on 10/24/2003 2:34:37 PM PDT by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: olorin
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.

Sarcasm. Posts like that usually (sometimes people forget) get one of these (/s)

697 posted on 10/24/2003 2:34:45 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 677 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; exmarine
Lookee - you got 666...

PING EXMARINE!

It's a Sign.

698 posted on 10/24/2003 2:34:47 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
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 PM PDT by honeygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]




You know they say, you get what you pay for.
699 posted on 10/24/2003 2:36:15 PM PDT by Area51 (RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
You can call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that it takes a willful ACT of the doctor to facilitate the death. Should we kill babies - they can't feed themselves either. How about brain-damaged people who were in car accidents? What's the difference between those cases and this one? You need to read the Decl. of Independence where it talks about the INALIENABLE right to life - that means it cannot be abrogated by ANY MAN, including your judge in FLA. No one can state what the woman's wishes are - it's HEARSAY. We don't starve people on HEARSAY. Besides, I don't see a RIGHT TO DIE in the Constitution. I don't care what it says in the Humanist Manifesto I or II - those are not the law of the land.
700 posted on 10/24/2003 2:36:17 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 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