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)
I suspect habs4ever hit abuse on himself. He doesn't want to get in trouble with the Free Republic tea threads. Calling women -- good women like yourself -- a bimbo is no way to win friends over there. :o)
Nonetheless, I saw it. You saw it. Many people saw it.
Neets, I know you like the fellow, but he is really mean for no good reason to LOTS and LOTS of freepers. Double-check your feelings on him. Just cuz he's nice to you doesn't mean he's nice.
Why?
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.
How does posting an explanation of the libel laws serve to curtail speech, save possibly for curtailing libelous speech?
Except in the case of Rush Limbaugh of course. Dan Rather blatantly said he was buying drugs illegally, no alleged at all.
Well, now it's clearer.
Is is his testosterone level that you object to? Perhaps I was wrong in my observation you were paranoid and obsessed. Now I see it's a case of you needing some Viagra.
I still though respectfully believe that CP being OPH is an issue here, considering the potential impact his attempt here to silence critics might have on the Forum. I will not type CP and FRN in the same sentence again after this, but unless told otherwise, I do believe that OPH being CP and trying to stifle speech through this thread is fair game.
Threat? What threat? A post about defamation/libel/slander as the law applies in Florida? What's so threatening about it? I certainly don't feel threatened by it.
I don't care why he would be protected. I just want to know when I'm talking to a blowhard like CP that a mere whack up the side the head will not get his attention...and it is pretty clear from his silence that he knows how to duck.
We know there are some protected species and that is ok. We all have batty old aunts in the attic like Deb and Howlin...but, they do not claim to be lawyers. and having lost an argument give a lecture on defamation.
You got me, too--and no apology necessary. I thought your (phrasing) was funny myself.
Keep up the good work, Bob J.
So what was the point of putting this up? Chancy was just trying to give his opponent a heads up because he was so concerned about their welfare? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
20 bucks, same as in town.
Was that really necessary???
What I wonder is, what's the real reason for posting the code?
Nope.....I don't trust barristers.
Not even with my neighbor's sheep.
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.