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
Really classy there.
This was posted 5 hours ago. In protest of the first thread.
The answer to bad speech is more speech.
OF course now I am so bored with this all that I wouldn't mind if both dumb threads got nuked.
Well, if the guy couldn't figure the answer to his question unassisted...one does tend to wonder.
Michael Schenker RULES!!! That's not slanderous.
Benn some changes at the old firm.
Cheatem is the only original member of the firm remaining. Dewey sold out to Howe who retired leaving his interest in the firm to his son.
They're still doing business as Howe II, Cheatem P.C. and are finalizing a merger with Moore & Moore Services.
ROFLMAO!!!
Why do people who pose as conservatives create obstacles for other conservatives ,who are fighting for a conservative belief?
It makes me wonder why a freeper would try and scare other freepers from exploring theroies, and gathering data on a topic that is most ceratinly newsworthy, political, and indeed front page news.
Anyone left around here who isn't afraid to share their thoughts on this with me?
Maybe they are not conservative at all.
For the purposes of his current legal situation, Kobe would likely not be considered a public person. Being dragged into court, or suing someone else in court, does not make one even a limited purpose public person.
Quite correct; but he's ALREADY a public person by dint of his pre-legal-issues celebrity.
But your post also undermines positing Michael Schiavo as a public person.
Although not common, this is true. If the statements are true it can still be defamation if the defamer leaves out information that would cast the defamed person in a different light than the one actually implied in the defamatory statements.
An example of this might be if you called someone a "killer who took the life of another person". On the surface, and if true, would be defamation if the 'killer' acted clearly in self-defense. While technicaly true, it would still b3e defamation because it would not present a true representation of the facts.
As an aside, the reason prosecutors will rarely, if ever, make comments to the media about specifics of a defendants actions is because prosecutors have no immunity for their statements to the media.
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.