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)
Isn't CP like the Emperor or something?
No, he's either the mystic high exalted ruler or a lawyer with delusions.
I guess it could be because this situation has generated a lot of difficult emotion for everyone in Terri's family, and everyone who knows her, and he doesn't really want to sue her Dad. Yep, I can see where he'd have much less reason to hesitate about suing say, you, than he would about suing his wife's dad.
Thank you, Jim.
OK, well, try this: I'm 6', 240 with about 13% BF (and going down) and while I always avoid trouble like the plague, I'm well prepared for it with ample schooling in martial arts offensive techniques and self defense type defensive techniques, and am usually well armed. I'm also a trial lawyer (primarily defense) who's pretty much an expert on personal jurisdiction law (mainly Texas, but I know enough about other states) who would never be subject to jurisdiction of a Florida court, or to a Federal Court in Florida. A lawsuit doesn't frighten me in the least.
Now, will someone please tell me what this post is about, other than a treatise on Florida defamation law and all us screwballs talking about how (supposedly) tough we are on an anonymous network?
When you try to intimidate folks you need to be more than loud...
You made the claim:
... there are literally thousands of defamation suits that result favorably for plaintiffs - including against the press, and many of those for statements of opinion.
... 79 posted on 10/24/2003 11:01 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
Back it up with the facts or retract.
If you don't you can be charged with intimidation
That's why I want all your aliases. Think about it. Once we get to discovery you'll have to pay for the search time...and we wouldn't want Opey and Habsey to work that off in the Pokey...
Face it, fella. You are a blowhard who keeps going just one more step over the line.
Looks the the big guy is more in agreement with me than you. :)
BWAHAHAHA!!
On pages 181-182 of his book, Felos claims that merely by visualizing a plane crash during a flight he was taking back to Florida, he caused the plane to begin to crash and that God spoke to him at that moment to warn him: "Be careful what you think. You are more powerful than you realize". Felos writes that after being told by God his powers, "....I was startled, humbled, and blessed by God's admonishment."
Felos is a whackjob who thinks he can crash airplanes with his imagination, and that God has personally spoken to him to warn him about how powerful he is! How can anyone possibly damage Felos' "reputation" as much as his own published words do??
What you said makes perfect sense, but it will have no effect on those who have become completely irrational over this case. They somehow think a keyboard is an impenetrable shield for what they say, when it is not.
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.