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)
Try parsing that sentence again. It's incomprehensible in its current form.
The silence is deafening. Is he still affiliated with FR Network? Is his opinion the opinion of the FR network? Or, is he giving an opinion divorced from his other position either current or in the past.
Who gives a rip about what they think at LP? Chancy is trying to squelch debate due to the threat of legal danger. Who Chancy is matters alot to this issue. You can divert away, but the issue is still on the table. I don't believe I have slandered anybody, but I would like to know if the FR network is handing down an opinion here. Are they going to start turning in posters who cross the line in their opinion? Is Chancy/OPH the person responsible for making that determination?
You're making me dizzy. But let me make a guess of Alabama. That is where the malpractice occured.
:)
chancellor palpatine has refused to cite any source for his ridiculous claims that would give credence to his thinly veiled threat.
It is alleged that chancellor palpatine was aware of the impropriety of his posting lurid discussions of nudist activities as one_particular_harbour and as a favor for past service he was granted absolution for his depravity and his posts removed from FR. While some replies to him, quoting him, remain, his association with JoeEveryman and habs4ever is clear.
Besides, some days I get up and decided there are just too many blowhards around FR trying to get the girls to swoom. It is just Cp's day in the barrel.
Since when is outing a liar a crime? Take that towel of yours and wipe the egg off your face.
So how much do you help your little pals at LP feverishly cut & paste posts from FR to LP? Direct them to certain threads? Comment on FR pasted to LP threads? without my permission and without being paid for theM?
I'm not going to look them up but I've seen at least a hundred in the last three days.
Whaddo *I* care? Well, leaving aside that I asked you first, so you owe me first response: I'm curious why you are fixated on this topic. Chancellor Palpatine is a funny freeper with some points that -- while I might disagree with a lot of them -- are well thought out. It never once has been apparant that CP and OPH are one and the same person, so, it comes back to....
"Whydya Care?"
That would be what concerns you. You've also asked me to pay for legal opinions you post here (when I wouldn't dream of asking such payment for myself.)
To some of us, the law is more than a mercenary calling.
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.