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)
No. He is trying to intimidate others with gobbleygook and claiming thousands of defamation cases have been won by plaintiffs many involving 'opinion' when just the opposite is true.
He's all mouth on a lard.
Yowzaa... I'm just a real estate lawyer- by this point I've exhausted my civpro knowledge.
I did get an A on my civpro exam by answering a four part question with three pages of facts by writing this: The court should dismiss the case because there is no diversity and therefore no subject-matter jurisdiction.
The record is 11 after one word.
Citation, please.
----------
"A U.S. District Court has dismissed a defamation suit and issued an accompanying order that Global Telemedia International (GTMI) pay the attorneys' fees for individuals the company sued over Internet message board postings. The action may set the stage for broader protection of those who post jibes on the Web.
The court's ruling that the postings of Barry King and Ron Reader on a Raging Bull message board were protected free speech on a public issue may discourage the aggressive pursuit of Web posters critical of corporations, according to legal observers.
"The trend is that Internet speakers are becoming more aware of their rights," Megan Gray, the Los Angeles attorney who defended Reader, told NewsFactor Network.
Lawsuit SLAPPed
The defamation suit filed by GTMI, a Newport Beach, California-based telecommunications company, argued that statements made by Reader and Stevens, who posted under different names on Raging Bull's GTMI message board, were defamatory.
The court, however, dismissed the suit earlier this year, applying legislation known as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and ruled last week that GTMI must also pay the defendants' legal fees, which total more than $55,000.
Attorney Gray told NewsFactor that the case marks the first time a company has had to pay legal fees in such a case, and may help discourage companies in their aggressive fight against critical Web postings.
"The large attorney-fee award may stem the hundreds of 'cyber gag' lawsuits being filed around the country to stifle Internet speech expressing negative opinions about matters of public interest, like poor corporate performance," said a statement from Gray's firm, Baker & Hostetler LLP.
Subpoena Squashers
While free speech and legal groups have warned of the growing number of suits that seek to disclose the identity of Web posters and pursue defamation claims, they say the tide may be turning.
"[This case] is going to discourage [frivolous lawsuits] because many of these cyber SLAPP or cyber gag suits are violations of free speech," Gray said. "The law does not permit a company to file a frivolous lawsuit solely to obtain subpoena power. The companies that pursue these look bad."
Attorneys and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also increasingly defending Web posters and their identities, Gray said, adding that many message boards also now contain more information on rights of expression.
He's been on a tear lately, thats for sure. Check out some of the other threads he's started.
Though I find his parading his alleged legal prowess kinda entertaining, I honestly don't know why the powers that be around here tolerate him. He's definitely at odds with the spirit of this board.
Well, if you want to bring your Bible to court to swear on, there's no one stopping you. Other than that, I don't get your screed.
This same attention to detail has brought you to your flawed conclusions in the Schiavo case.
LOL...shoppin' ain't so easy now, is it?! Don't forget not to buy Chinese, too!!
Those who participate in the smearing of Ronald Reagan certainly don't deserve my consumer dollar, though...I'm boycottin' them fer sure!!
FReegards...MUD
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.