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)
I think Jim Robinson has stated in the past that even if under subpoena he would NEVER reveal identifying confidential information about individual FReepers.
And posting legal threats like this should be carefully considered by Jim Robinson as an open threat against Free republic itself and an attempt to stifle pro-life views contrary to your own sick views.
And if you are a lawyer, that should weigh even more against you in Jim Robinson's evaluation of these attempts to censor views with which you disagree.
But I feel certain you're taking names anyhow.
You working for the ACLU or Attny Felos himself?
Assuming, of course, that some action flows.
Michael Reagan: CBS Portrays President as Foul-mouthed Buffoon The upcoming CBS miniseries on President Ronald Reagan portrays him as a foul-mouthed buffoon who repeatedly used profanity - behavior he never exhibited in real life, his son Michael said Thursday. "It's horrendous, it's absolutely horrendous," Michael Reagan complained after viewing eight minutes' worth of excerpts of the film, which stars James Brolin, husband of Reagan-hater Barbra Streisand, as the 40th president. "They paint my father as a buffoon," the former first son-turned radio host told fellow talker Sean Hannity. "They also have my dad taking God's name in vain in an angry, angry way. ... They have him calling another person in anger an S.O.B." "I've never seen my Dad that angry and I've never heard him use the 'G-D' word in my life," Reagan complained. "They dislike my father, and you can see that," he said. "They actually infer that Alzheimer's was setting in at the time the whole thing was going on with Ollie North and Iran-Contra - which is absurd." The CBS film is even harder on former first lady Nancy Reagan, Michael Reagan revealed. "All the bad things you've heard about Nancy - I mean, this show just hates her - absolutely hates her," he told Hannity. Reagan called CBS's portrayal of Mrs. Reagan "obscene." The former first son said he talked to Mrs. Reagan about the excerpts Wednesday night, saying, "Of course she's upset about it - we're all upset about it." "The eight minutes' worth of clips that I saw [showed] Nancy as the head of the government and Dad was just the buffoon going along for the ride, with everybody laughing at him," Reagan said. "It is so sad." Reagan said he sent a copy of the clips he viewed to the former first lady.
Editor's note: Honor Ronald Reagan – Get the USS Ronald Reagan Cap – Click Here Now Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Friday, Oct. 24, 2003 11:13 a.m. EDT
Have an Opinion About This? Click Here to Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today or go to www.cbs.com and click on "feedback” at the bottom of the page.
Media Bias
For it to be libelous, I would have to know it to be false.
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.