Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DEFAMATION -- LIBEL AND SLANDER; (Becareful what you say about the Clintons)
Florida Bar Association ^ | 10/24/03 | dubyaismypresident

Posted on 10/24/2003 11:50:45 AM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: aclu; hypocrisy; ratfink; schiavo; shiavo; terri; terrischiavo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: Pagey
I agree with you. Bill Clinton is a traitor a perjurer and a communist (but I repeat myself)

This thread is satire of another thread.

21 posted on 10/24/2003 12:25:07 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (Official Scheming Diabolical Minion of the Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pagey
I also believe Hillary is the devil incarnate she can sue me if she likes. I doubt she can prove she's not.
22 posted on 10/24/2003 12:26:10 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (Official Scheming Diabolical Minion of the Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Someone who makes TRUE statments about another can also be found guilty of slander. I remember that as a decision handed down 25-30 years ago by the SCOTUS (or the Calif Supreme Court?) when some guy who said something unflattering, but proveably true about another person was found guilty of slander and the court upheld the decision.
23 posted on 10/24/2003 12:27:42 PM PDT by ZGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; Joy Angela
'Just a little truth on a Friday' BUMP
24 posted on 10/24/2003 12:27:52 PM PDT by Pagey (Hillary Rotten is a Smug, Holier - Than - Thou Socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Sid Blumenthal paid part of the defendant's legal costs to get out of a libel suit against Drudge.
25 posted on 10/24/2003 12:28:24 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay and Idi-ay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pagey
It can never be said often enough.
26 posted on 10/24/2003 12:28:45 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (Official Scheming Diabolical Minion of the Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
and a most excellent parody, dubs!
27 posted on 10/24/2003 12:29:41 PM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
Since the original thread had to be parody, this must be parrotty parody.....
28 posted on 10/24/2003 12:31:19 PM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1; dubyaismypresident
once a year, whether he needs it or not, dubs is struck by genius : )
29 posted on 10/24/2003 12:32:49 PM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
I'm demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

That's my very favorite type of humor.
You get a gold star for today!


30 posted on 10/24/2003 12:32:55 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
That's my very favorite type of humor. You get a gold star for today!

While Rush is gone we all need to kick it up a notch.

31 posted on 10/24/2003 12:35:04 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (Official Scheming Diabolical Minion of the Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Oh, I think it is going to go up a notch any second...lol
32 posted on 10/24/2003 12:37:33 PM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
I saw.
33 posted on 10/24/2003 12:38:17 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (Official Scheming Diabolical Minion of the Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
heh heh.... ; )
34 posted on 10/24/2003 12:39:01 PM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush; Old_Professor
Ping
35 posted on 10/24/2003 12:57:36 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (demonstrating absurdity with absurdity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ZGuy
A public figure cannot sue for slander, and Hillary's history with Gennifer Flowers prevents her from suing others for slander.

Hillary Clinton used libel and slander to smear Gennifer Flowers. Hillary's defense in layman's terms was that the lies were merely political speech (allowed to lie in political speech) and therefore protected. Clinton lost that appeal.

Flowers won and will go to trial.
36 posted on 10/24/2003 12:57:37 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
That's OK. We're covered.

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.

Opinions, as stated below this page, are allowed under freedom of expression. There's no such thing as the thought police in America. That's Democrat propaganda. No man can Constitutionally deny another the freedom of thought, i.e.,opinion (even though the government schools are notorious for getting the kids to believe it).

37 posted on 10/24/2003 1:00:56 PM PDT by concerned about politics ( Have you donated to the Salvation Army? Liberals HATE Christian organizations! Tax deductable, too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Cool can I post that over here.
38 posted on 10/24/2003 1:02:25 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (demonstrating absurdity with absurdity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree
Thanks! LOL!

Tia

39 posted on 10/24/2003 1:07:07 PM PDT by tiamat ("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
bump and bookmark. Thanks, dubya!
40 posted on 10/24/2003 1:11:36 PM PDT by lonevoice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson