DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed]

Florida Bar Association ^

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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)

[honeygrl]

"Does that become before or after they accuse of being a Nazi? "

And can I get sued for calling him a Nazi?

[Bikers4Bush]

I'm not sure what "know" is supposed to mean but it's a free country so believe what you want.

[ladtx]

LOL! You're right.

[NeoCaveman]

ROTFLMAO

[onyx]

Ya think we're "published" yet? :)

[IncPen]

I'm curious, Jim, if by moderating the boards you're an 'active publisher' (ie. a newspaper) as opposed to a 'passive publisher' (ie. an ISP), and thus more likely to be held responsible (for things that are libelous but for one reason or another are not removed)?

[harrowup]

...and besides being rude, you are?

[exmarine]

Well, if you would like to defend the secular humanist position insofar as it is compatible with freedom, I would be glad to take your position apart for your - piece by humanist piece.

[dirtboy]

Well, there are the death threats and threats to kidnap Terri.

And those threats have been promptly removed by the moderators when they are brough to the moderators' attention.

[Catspaw]

I know. But I think the rest of us should know if he's done such a thing.

The paranoid "shoot the messenger" theme is amusing.

All Felos and the rest of the Schiavo legal team has to do to gather information on posters on FR is read the Terri threads simply by lurking. Ditto for the Schindler's legal team--as well as the Florida legislature and Governor's office.

If this was a private forum, I might indulge your paranoia. Right now, you're just being silly.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I don't really pay attention to the Kobe threads that much. But, Schiavo now has the ACLU on his side, and he and Felos are on a roll. I truly wouldn't put it past them.

Not to mention, if the big Democratic forces in Florida stand behind them and offer them all the assistance they need, we could see FR, or at the very least, Freeper's silenced. And, if that happens, we may realize too late that Bennett and Rush were just the beginning.

[Poohbah]

This same attention to detail has brought you to your flawed conclusions in the Schiavo case.

Ouch.

[Bikers4Bush]

"possible conflicts of interest in the case"

He's refused to state if he has a life insurance policy on her and he stands to acquire any money left from the lawsuits he supposedly filed on her beahlf and won.

There's nothing "possible" about it. He stands to benefit financially from her death in a number of ways. I'm betting he's already looking into book and movie of the week deals over his fight in the courts. No doubt he will be portrayed in the most noble of light.

[Catspaw]

And those threats have been promptly removed by the moderators when they are brough to the moderators' attention.

yes, they were, and I give all the credit to the mods who have to do that thankless job.

[Poohbah]

It doesn't say that oph claimed to do legal work for Jimrob.

[HighWheeler]

He hasn't cited a single personal lawsuit for defamation based on an Internet posting, either. Nor has he answered to my posting of the dismissed case from a large corporation.

Now that you have called him a blowhard, it is up to him to prove he is not a blowhard in his eventual Internet lawsuit. I want to sell the t-shirts outside the courtroom as we go through THAT discovery.

[Catspaw]

Well, if you would like to defend the secular humanist position insofar as it is compatible with freedom, I would be glad to take your position apart for your - piece by humanist piece.

Aw, I know you can do it without me, thanks a lot for the offer.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The pulled threads can be requested, too.

[Calpernia]

>>>How come?!

My post 309

[onyx]

I'm not sure what "know" is supposed to mean.....

And I ain't telling --- I'll have to be subpeonaed.