DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law

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)

If someone filed such a suit against me, they would have to prove that my statements were false.

Actually, in cases where you had stated that the plaintiff was engaged in odious activity, you'd have to prove the statement TRUE. Otherwise, someone could falsely say that you were a child molester and have zero consequences, as proving a negative statement (i.e., "exmarine is NOT a child molester") is logically impossible.

If the bible says my statements are true, then you will also have to dismantle the very basis for western law.

Flip...flip...flip...can't find anything in the Bible saying that "All of exmarine's statements are true."

foreign nationals of the same nation of citizenship on both sides of the action (say, a UK subject on both the plaintiff and defendant side) does not violate complete diversity.

I always thought that made logical sense. The whole idea behind diversity is that it is supposed to prevent a Georgia resident from being discriminated against in a Florida court, for example. Presumably, neither state nor federal courts would be any more or less friendly to a citizen of the UK. I remember this discussion in law school.

Too bad Posner will not be on the SCOTUS- he wrote a law review article supporting a market in adoptable babies. Talk about something that would look really bad in a confirmation hearing.

Definitely no need to change your tagline:

a.. "Terri, on Mr. Schiavo's orders, has had no therapy of any kind since
the Fall of 1991.

b.. "At a medical malpractice trial in November 1992, Mr. Schiavo swore to
the jury that he would devote any jury award to Terri's care and
rehabilitation and he promised under oath that he would take care of Terri
for the rest of his life.

c.. "After securing an award of over $700,000 for Terri's care, Mr.
Schiavo did an about-face, and has spent the last 10 years in a determined
campaign to cause Terri's death.

d.. "This campaign began within a few months of the malpractice award,
when, in mid-1993, Mr. Schiavo had a 'do not resuscitate' order placed in
Terri's medical chart.

e.. In June of 1993 Mr. Schiavo refused to allow treatment of an infection
Terri had developed, later admitting under oath that he expected the
infection to progress to a fatal sepsis that would kill Terri.

f.. "In 1995, contrary to his promises to the jury that he would honor his
marriage vows, Mr. Schiavo, who still pretends to be Terri's 'loving' and
'grieving' husband, began living with another woman, by whom he has
conceived two children out-of-wedlock. He calls this woman his fiancee, even
while his wife Terri lays starving and dehydrating to death in hospice for
the terminally ill---to which he consigned her three years ago so that she
would receive no therapy.

g.. "It was not until 1998, when Mr. Schiavo hired Mr. Felos, that Mr.
Schiavo suddenly 'remembered' that Terri had made some vague remarks about
not wanting to be sustained on anything 'artificial' if she became
incapacitated.

h.. "When he promised the malpractice jury back in 1993 that he would take
care of Terri for the rest of his life, Mr. Schiavo said nothing to the jury
about Terri not wanting to be sustained on anything 'artificial.'

i.. "Mr. Schiavo's crocodile tears and his statement that 'I struggle
with' the Court's order to starve and dehydrate Terri defy belief. That
order is the end result of Mr. Schiavo's utter determination to see Terri
dead so that he can marry his 'fianc\'e9e.'

j.. "Even though he has no Court order authorizing his actions, Mr.
Schiavo has not only removed the feeding tube that has sustained our Terri
for 13 years, but has also ordered that no attempt be made to feed Terri by
mouth, even if she could be trained to take sustenance orally.

k.. "On Saturday, October 18, 2003, one of Mr. Schiavo's team of lawyers
refused to allow our Terri to receive her final Holy Communion. This lawyer
would not even allow Msgr. Malanowski to place a miniscule piece of the Host
on her tongue. Perhaps Michael fears that if Terri can swallow a piece of
the Host, the whole world will know he is starving a helpless woman who can
take sustenance by mouth.

l.. "Mr. Schiavo has spent the great bulk of Terri's malpractice award on
legal fees for Mr. Felos, in an effort to have Terri killed. He spent
nothing on Terri's therapy and rehabilitation---contrary to the promises he
made to the jury, under oath, more than ten years ago.

"We cannot allow Mr. Schiavo's lies to go unanswered. We pray that God will
see to it that justice is done and that our Terri's life is delivered from
the clutches of this ruthless man, who dares to pretend that he is grieving
with us over what he has done to Terri."

Robert Schindler, Mary Schindler, Robert Schindler. Jr. and Suzanne
Schindler

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.