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)
Ah, one tiny issue, it's Jim's site, he can post on any thread he choses.
Actually Disney and AA Milne's family are duking this out in court (ownership of the mark).
Winnie's name is safe thanks to the "Bono Copyright Extension" in 1998...
Let me know if you ever do that.
Something tells me you're going to have a very very long wait.
"C'mere, ewe"???
I'll take Baseless AntiFreeper Speculations for 500, Alex.
I stand corrected - it was a poor hypothetical. I am always willing to admit a mistake...
;>)
However, my "..." still stands.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Exactly. This is an internet website, and none of this matters. The only way I could think anything anybody said on FR would matter legally would be if a group of people were using FR to plan a crime. For instance, if somebody said, "Hey, I'm going over and I'm gonna shoot so-and-so", and another person said, "I know where he lives and I'll FReepmail you his address," and then later that night so-and-so was shot, well, then I think that would have some relevance.
Huh? And what would people do at another internet site concern me in the least? Why don't you take it back to LP and argue it out there? I'm sure you know the way.
This is the process of our Republic. People get upset about something, produce evidence to others to convince them to help, find other ways to get power from numbers and then all together put pressure on the people in power, esp. on our elected representaives, to change laws to fit our agenda.
This is not a bad thing. The left ahs been using this method for many many years now. Believe me , most of the time they could not prove most of the things they were upset by. It is by the people, for the peopel. How is it you find yourself so scared by that?
Why are you acting as though this hasn't been done a thousand times in our country's history?
We read the information, used our common sense and then all talked about what we could do to make the changes we wanted to see.
If you , or the Florida Bar association , or Micahel Schindler or the wierdo attorney ,is going to take on Freepers and Freerepublic for Libel and Slander because of what has happened in this case.. We'll I guess there are about 10 million suits to bring upon all people who use the internet for chat on any topic.
This is America after all, everyone has an opinion about everything ,and a million ways in which they formed their opnions, we don't have to rationalize that to you or anyone else.
There are many activists lurking out here in cyber space on thousands of different topics. Who is going to police cyber space.. you?
IMO, your post borders on a terroristic threat. ( Yes, I am allowed to say that.) I stand by everyhting I have said and posted here, and I won't stop fighting for what I believe in no matter how much you want me to, and no matter how much you try and scare me with the bogey man.
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.