DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER; (Becareful what you say about the Clintons)

Florida Bar Association ^ | 10/24/03 | dubyaismypresident

[NeoCaveman]

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER [Florida Law - FReepers Heed] Florida Bar Association ^

Posted on 10/24/2003 1:14 PM EDT by 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.

If you believe you need legal advice, call your attorney. If you do not have an attorney, call The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service at 1-800-342-8011, or the local lawyer referral service or legal aid office listed in the yellow pages of your telephone book.

(updated 12/01)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Florida; Click to Add Topic KEYWORDS: FLORIDA; LAW; MODERATION; SCHIAVO; SCHINDLER; SUE; Click to Add Keyword -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Report Abuse | Bookmark ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-190 next last --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take heed folks - hiding behind screennames will not defeat a Federal subpoena.

1 posted on 10/24/2003 1:14 PM EDT by Chancellor Palpatine

[mrsmith]

"I don't think he pulls posts on the basis of libel or slander. "

Well, an instance I remember is someone who'd been fired from a job and started a thread saying very uncomplimentary things about his former company.
I assumed that was done to protect the poster rather than the forum.

I didn't follow the threads on the comatose woman so I'll take your word on the motivation of the poster, but his point is worth considering despite that.

I have no clear idea of our rights and reponsibilities as participants on a forum and like you will go with whatever Jim thinks best.

[jwalsh07]

If you get time, read this case from the ninth circuit. It covers a lot of ground but is informative to this blue collar.

[NeoCaveman]

Now blocking both mind control rays and litigation rays

[Diva Betsy Ross]

IMO, His point is that he wants us to stop talking about what he wants us to stop talking about. His problem is he isn't Jim Robinson, so many here don't really care what his point is. I think he is trying to control the debate on this forum re: the Terry Schindler case. It seems to me that he would like those of us who are "activists for Terri" to stop making noise, so he is threathening us with lawsuits in a round about way.

[Torie]

Good case. I just speed read it. Defamation suits won't go far, when it is clear from the context that the asserter really doesn't know anything more about the underlying facts than anybody else in the public square, or those underlying facts are understood, and someone has just gone off the deap end, with nutty conclusions or assertions. Common sense is a gift. Some have it, and some don't. As like one ex poster likes to continually say about himself for reasons best known to himself, I at least in this area have the gift, as do you. :)

I might add, that as a practical matter most of the nuts, or near nutters, and fanactical practitioners of hyperbole, are judgment proof. That little faclet does act even in litigation happy America, as a prophylactic to enriching members of my profession even more.

[mrsmith]

I accept that you have reasons for your opinion of the motivation of the poster.

No one should take any statements here any more seriesly than they wish IMHO.

[jwalsh07]

Thanks for confirming my amateur opinion of the opinion.

[palmer]

A red flag I would look for is privately stored images because the hits for those images could be compared with posting times to get a rough idea of what IP address is posting. Your image came from:

Alcoa Inc.
100 Technical Drive IPLD
Alcoa Center, PA 15069
US

who I would trust more than say

[NeoCaveman]

I might add, that as a practical matter most of the nuts, or near nutters, and fanactical practitioners of hyperbole, are judgment proof. That little faclet does act even in litigation happy America, as a prophylactic to enriching members of my profession even more.

Cool. Thanks for the insight.

[Fighting Irish]

Eh......shaddap you fat slob...go find an intern and play doctor while your equally repulsive wife slithers up next to Ted Kennedy and helps him suck down a gallon of Crown Royal on the Senate floor.

Let the litigation begin!

[NeoCaveman]

Let the litigation begin!

Doesn't anyone read the thread at all before posting.....

[mrsmith]

Well that's encouraging.

Here we talk as if we're among friends (or friendly enemies) and I think that is a problem for applying libel/slander laws because our statements are not merely just spoken before a small group but are written " for the whole world to see".

Malice is easily shown- heck it is trumpeted; and people go to great lengths to sound as if they are speaking authoritatively whether they are or not.

I foresee lots of lawyers making bucks before a balance between personal property (reputation) and free speech is found in this new form of communication.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

I have seen this person's posts and for well over a week where they have discouraged every other person they ran into from doing anything about a situation that many were upset by. This person called names, and said many nasty things to others who wanted to get involved and help in a very emotional case.

But I don't take anything this poster says more seriesly then I would if it came from my Peta loving Mother in Law. Both have manipulative ways of controling the debate.

[IoCaster]

Michael Schiavo: same criteria as Scott Peterson, but he isn't even indicted yet, so he's probably got a better claim to private status.

Hmmm.... Terri's Law? It seems like a very public act to me. I could be wrong.

:o)

[Poohbah]

Hmmm.... Terri's Law? It seems like a very public act to me. I could be wrong.

Sorry, the fact that the Florida Legislature passed a law doesn't change his status.

[PokeyJoe]

I read it. My comments were not necessarily directed at you. I should have been more clear.

Do you remember the husband and wife who refused to shake Heir Slickmeister's hand at a Presidential event?

Heir Slickmeister lied to the secret service and had them arrested.

What you've written might be satire - but I don't put it past democRATS to intimidate, threaten, and/or steal elections in order for them to regain power. Said another way, I wouldn't put it past them. ie: see unpatriotic idiot Mellencamp's recent sophomoric rant.

[sfRummygirl]

Man, you hit it right on the head, with the desciption you didn't give. Good job!

[IoCaster]

Sorry, the fact that the Florida Legislature passed a law doesn't change his status.

It's a very public act. It's been in all the papers even. I think it might have even been on TV. I'd tend to believe that MS has been elevated to public status and/or scrutiny by now.

YMMV.

:^)

[Poohbah]

It's a very public act. It's been in all the papers even. I think it might have even been on TV. I'd tend to believe that MS has been elevated to public status and/or scrutiny by now.

Sorry. Other people's actions don't affect his status.

[IoCaster]

Michael Schiavo's attorney vows to keep fighting

Michael Schiavo's lawyer wants restraining order against Governor Bush

Oh my, it surely seems that he has been publicly exposed by virtue of this ongoing case. He should sue the appropriate authorities for this exposure. What say you?