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)
Hey! Good one !!!
You'll be hearing from my lawyer, one_particular_harbor.
I take you at your word Bob. However, I still think it is important and relevant to know if Chancy is OPH. Again, I accept that he no longer consults for FRN, but do you understand why somebody posting a thinly veiled legal threat, AND who also used to consult with FRN, allegedly, might ethically be compelled to reveal who he is?
That is all. I feel this thread should be pulled in the meanwhile. If Chancy does have ulterior motives, perhaps related to the time he was here under a different name, consulting for FRN, but not for FR or Jim directly, then this is a bad faith effort at intimidating his critics.
I am a neutral observer in this fight vis a vis Florida btw. I was very conflicted by issues on both sides of the case, and do not have strong feelings one way or the other, or more accurately, I do have strong feelings for both sides of the argument.
Chancellor Palpatine was very heavily involved, directly in those threads, and he wrote this thread, which can be construed to be an intimidation effort of those who disagreed with him.
His identity, his conflicts of interest are relevent, IMHO anyways. Until he honestly accounts for himself, I believe this thread is a pernicious effort to curtail anonymous speech, done anonymously, through possibly a second pseudonym. There is some irony involved here.
OPH no longer exists. Do you know why? It isn't any of my business but these deflections are worse than you and John jousting with the anti-freepers in their caves.
"When you have facts on your side, pound the facts. When you don't have facts on your side, pound the table"
Well now, Bob, you have the facts. I am sitting on my hands. Do you know why OPH's posts were deleted and do you know what happened to him?
Clearly this thread stems from arguments on other threads.
My concern goes to the integrity of the forum, hence my post to Jim that he answered at post #483. Jim's not worried about the forum, so why is Palpatine offering pro-bono legal advice?
Palpatine's been all over this thread braying about something that, it seems to me, is clear to all of us (the issue of libel), and all of us can make our own judgements about what we say and accept the consequences for doing so.
Who is Palpatine to issue a blanket warning to the forum?
It seems to me that, based on the suggestions of posters to this thread, Palpatine is trying to stifle dissent with his point of view regarding matters pending in Florida.
I'm simply asking the guy to come clean, which, if he has nothing to hide, shouldn't be a problem, should it?
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now that he's off the thread, but he sure as hell was answering others and ignoring my posts to him.
I notice his cohorts have quieted down some
Palpatine? What say you?
Ow. I'm a parenthetical statement.
That hurts.
I will let the other readers decide that. Thanks for your opinion though.
Being legally bound to Bobby Brown would drive ya to drugs, it is said.
Too bad. I used to have the hots for Whitney.
(sigh)
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.