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)
"It's true. This man has no dick....."
Okay, now was that comment part of the Ghostbusters thread, or was it about the person who started this thread? /sarc
LOL! Count on you to make me laugh.
What is up with habs4ever? I have never -- outside, of course, the Guild/WordForTheDay-type threads -- seen him be anything but rotten to everyone he encounters.
I have no use for such a meanspirited person. I told him long ago never to bother writing to me.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the evidence they heard, the witnesses called to testify before committees, or the how much of the trial record reviewed? You and I both know the answer to that - which is very little, if any at all. They reacted to the pressure politics based on the emotionalism of the moment. We're supposed to be about rational consideration of policies based on solid fact.
What question?
---------------------------------------------------------------How different is that, really, from all those people who think that after the feeding tube was reinserted and Terri Schiavo got better it was because they had prayed?
Actually, quite different. Praying for a life to be saved and crediting prayer when that life is saved is well within the scope of normal human behaviour. Seriously claiming that God spoke to you audibly to warn that you have supernatural power to crash a planeload of innocent people by exerting paranormal mind control over the laws of aerodynamics is outside the bounds of normal human behaviour, and would probably be seen by mental health professionals as an indication of a mental idiopathy.
Terri Schiavo would certainly have died if the tube had not been replaced. People prayed and the tube was replaced. Her physical state improved after the tube was replaced, and that was of course a direct and natural result of her receiving nourishment and fluid no matter the cause of the tube being replaced.
On one hand, Christians who prayed for that to happen believe God influenced the FL legislature to order the tube replaced. OTOH, Mr. Felos claims to believe God spoke to him and made him aware he possessed supernatural power to crash a planeload of innocent people. IMO, the people who believe their prayers saved Mrs. Schiavo's life are rational people who made a normal, common response to an impending tragedy. Again IMO, Mr. Felos is either a bold-faced liar who heard no such thing as he claims, or else a delusional mental case who bears close scrutiny by the authorities lest he do harm to himself or others.
Assertion, maybe. According to the disclamer on the bottom of the page, the posts are opinions. Mine is ALWAYS an opinion, just like it says. Prove me wrong.
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.