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
AND, if you're a public figure, it's harder to prove.
Bring it on Billary!
Sure. It says right on the bottom of this page we're posting only opinions. Opinions aren't liable under this law. I think.....I feel......In my opinion.....will not hold up in court. None of these are represented as fact.
Michael Schiavo may or may not be a public personage.
There, does that clear things up for you?
Seems like a fairly public guy now.
That was my old law firm.
LOL.
My old lawfirm was Dewey Cheatem and Howe.
Kobe Bryant: Public personality by virtue of voluntarily playing professional basketball.
Scott Peterson: probably a private person. If he goes off to Oblivion Island after this is over (assuming he isn't convicted), then he's a private person.
Monica Lewinsky: if she had made every reasonable effort to go away, she'd be a private person, but since she hasn't, she's a public person.
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.
If so, then we should see the same dire legal warnings being posted re: statements made on this forum about Scott Peterson?
Monica Lewinsky: if she had made every reasonable effort to go away, she'd be a private person, but since she hasn't, she's a public person.
Then, if it's proven that George Felos is writing a book about his involvement with Terri Schiavo, wouldn't it likewise be so that he's not "made every reasonable effort to go away"? If it's proven that Michael Schiavo is helping him to write such a book and will make profit from it too, how about his lack of every reasonable effort to go away?
George Felos is not Michael Schiavo. Attorneys have a harder time claiming private personage because they're involved in the legal system on a constant and ongoing basis.
If it's proven that Michael Schiavo is helping him to write such a book and will make profit from it too, how about his lack of every reasonable effort to go away?
If, if, if.
If he isn't, then Felos is going to get very wealthy off of (a) collecting judgements from overly-passionate and underly-thinking FReepers, and (b) from writing a book about how he sued a gazillion FReepers.
That would have required consistency.
Depends. What's being said about him?
That he's a murder. That's what many a poster has said.
Or a releaser of tormented souls, depending on your point of view. My personal point of view is that he has converted his desire to kill people into a money making business.
We live in the United States.
A person can sue his neighbor because the neighbors dog only poops green poop, not black like normal dogs. (you can sue anybody for anything in this great land).
In other words, if you say what you believe to be the truth, - somebody may sue you, but they will have to pay your attorney's fees after they lose. They will also likely suffer a civil lawsuit in their vein attempt to conceal the truth.
It doesn't depend on any definition of the word "is", or any other commonly used English word used to decribe a psychopathic congenital liar (diagnosed by licensed psychiatric professionals), "democrat progressive" chinese communist sympathetic and treasous behavior, rape enabling, who displays pedophilic tendancies (48 yr old man admitted a tryst with a 20 yr old intern), impeached former President who lost his bar card in his home state, and is no longer is entrusted with attorney/client relationships.
To anybody who wants to sue me - bring it on. I could use the extra cash.
GENNIFER FLOWERS RATS OUT BILL CLINTON ON HANNITY & COLMES
I think we should FREEP the National Enquirer and ask them why they can attempt to "out" Matt Lauer and get away with it, and Rush, yet they don't go after the story behind this?????
David Kendall will probably print the emails and use them for employee T-paper!
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.