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)
Answer the question please. Are you the same person who posted as OPH? Did you do legal work for FR Network? YOU can ignore the question, however, people reading this thread are not.
A lawyer who hides his identity, not once, but twice, while instructing everybody else about anonymous posting is quite rich don't you think?
Did you post under that name or not? Yes, or no?
Okay, now was that comment part of the Ghostbusters thread, or was it about the person who started this thread? /sarc
******************************************
Hhhhmmmmmmm......
Hadn't thought of THAT!
Lessee...."We report, YOU decide!"
:-)
Tia
Her video was all over TV, and they were calling her a comatose or vegatable and should be starved to death. I think that's what did it. Millions around the country saw it.
Please go away. Please do not ever post to me ever again.
Did you also know that Calif. (not FLA) has the most lawyers?
There is a reason for this:
New Jersey had first pick. :) (i love this joke)
You can't do anything about anything libelous you might have already posted, just like you can't do anything about any banks you might have robbed in the past.
Eventually the statute of limitations will protect you.
The chances of anyone here getting sued are pretty minimal, unless it's an orchestrated attack by the Democrat party. While there have been many attacks on individuals that might be judged libelous, almost all fall into the category of being somewhat debatable, or expressions of opinion. And then there's the question of whether someone's reputation has truly been damaged as a result of the post. How can Bill Clinton's reputation be hurt at this website?
Like it or not, people are skating on thinner ice on the Schiavo threads. The ice isn't much thicker on the Kobe threads or the Laci Peterson threads. In a lot of instances, posters here are risking a suit which they could lose.
It probably won't happen, simply because it won't be noticed, or the amount of the award recoverable isn't worth the trouble of filing a suit.
But it remains a possibility. Nobody is immune to a libel suit simply because they're posting under a screen name.
Man has a stroke. Can't swallow, make voluntary movements, or speak. Breathes and regulates blood pressure on his own. Remains in this condition for 13 years, kept alive by care requested by legal guardian. Brain scan shows little or no activity. History of similar cases shows little or no chance of reversal of condition.
Go ahead and riff on your absolute moral principles and their applicability for the doctor and the legal guardian. It will be easy to see why you are not a doctor.
Still I find it a little more than intertesting you felt compelled to post this now, eh?
Where were you & your "legal advise" when I suppose OJ, Clinoccio or any other number of people could've posed an equal -- if not more serious -- threat to this forum given the "letter of the law" you've so graciously provided.
C'mon ol' boy, whisper into my ear.
What's the angle you're working here.
Where've you a dog in this -- or any other -- fight outside of whatever your *practice* generates?
What's really behind the motivation of your clarion call that you'd go so far as to cite chapter & verse, hmmm?
Surely you must've known -- full well -- all it'd do is serve to stir up a hornet's nest of needless anger over what already is a sickening & heartbreaking situation?
I suppose you could claim yours is out of a "sincere concern" for the welfare of the forum's participants?
That it?
OK, I believe you. {wink-wink}
Your motive(s) are as pure as the driven snow.
Well gee thanks, Emporer.
Who'd a thunk it.
...you're really just a swell guy.
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.