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)
Don't you get tired of being wrong. The Decl. of Independence says that liberty is an inborn right - from God! "...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty..." Care to re-think?
That and $3.60 will get you a latte at Starbucks. The only liberty you have a right to is liberty you can grab for yourself and defend.
I already know that what God says means nothing to you. Nevertheless, it is a FACT. God-given rights can be abrogated by no man, and any tyrant who attempts to take them away should be overthrown by force, if necessary, and that goes for all of the marxists in this country who are trying to STEAL our God-given rights away. That is precisely what the Revolution was all about. Give me liberty or give me death. God is on the side of the just, and the revolutionary war was won against all odds - because God won it.
Briefly. Didn't seem all that important in this day and age.
You mean...this LIBERAL MARXIST HUMANIST day and age...it's all about ideology isn't it? Secular humanist law schools want nothing to do with one of the greatest legal minds in history because his views don't jive with their moral relativism. No wonder most people despise lawyers - most lawyers today have no principles other than the $$$ principle!
Most people despise lawyers because we make a lot more than they do. It's good to see that class-war rhetoric is alive and well.
The founders didn't invent the idea of God-given rights - they merely RECOGNIZED it! It's a fact whether you recognize it or not. Just the fact that you put so little credence on our founding documents is very revealing.
I thought that's what you said the Bible was for.
The founders recognized biblical authority as well as God's sovereignty over all nations.
And since you're so fond of finding a single quote and thereby claiming it proves your entire proposition, how's this one from Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Yes, it gives the fight much more authority when you know that God is the giver of the rights you are defending. That automatically means anyone who tries to steal them is a tyrant and an usurper who must be opposed.
By the way, Jefferson attended church in the chambers of Congress and used the USMC band for worship - didn't someone tell him about the separation of church and state?
Not very much like liberty is handed to people on a silver platter, is it?
God gives it to us but it must be defended and fought for because evil godless men will try to steal it and lord themselves over the people - like the ACLU and the secular humanists are doing today.
I have nothing against money or rich people, but I don't like moral relativist lawyers. You should direct your comment to your fellow liberals who want to steal from the rich and redistribute their wealth.
You store up your treasure on earth, I will store mine up in heaven.
Now, I don't know what that sleazy CP offered you guys to change the subject but I'll double it if you refrain from further discussions of a terminally boring nature. That is what we have CP for.
Thank you.
There you go again projecting. Now, how about it; would you like to admit that claiming thousands of plaintiffs prevail in defamation cases was at best gross hyperbole?
You can just answer yes and I'll leave you to the tender mercies of your harpies.
Scary? He ought to be able to handle it, if he's a grown up. Problem is with those who ain't wrapped all that tight is that they can't take a challenge without cussing out their tormentors.
And I can't say as I really care when they implode.
1,240 posted on 10/27/2003 12:58 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
Bad guess, counsellor; you don't lose weight imploding, you just change shape...is that what you are, counsellor? A Shape-Changer? Allows you to slip through the cracks?
Prove me wrong.
Idiot.
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.