Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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)


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,761-1,774 next last
To: Modernman
Or individually, as it's easier to push around a single person than multiple defendants.
141 posted on 10/24/2003 11:24:29 AM PDT by TheAngryClam (Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
it is another to make direct allegations and present that as truth, when you haveno actual knowledge of it and haven't bothered checking.

That is my point. He is, by definition a "Public Person" involved in a public controversy, and the above, negates the charge of libel...

142 posted on 10/24/2003 11:24:36 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
"and was used to put the pressure on the legislators and Jeb, without regard to evidence."

Sez, you. The way most of the rest of us see it schiavo was stopped cold in his tracks from using legal BS to kill another human being.

143 posted on 10/24/2003 11:24:43 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Wrong. Palpatine knows the law, you don't.

Palpatine doesn't know squat whcih means you, as his toady, knows less than squat.

Statements some here have made about Schiavo are clearly defamatory.

Just how would one go about defaming a worm?

If Schiavo is the evil, greedy man some here say he is, then he would dearly love to make some spending money by filing defamation suits, wouldn't he?

Whats he gonna do, file a class action defamatory lawsuit against 100 million Americans whose opinion is that he belongs in a package with TROJAN marked on it?

Should make for lots of discovery Wacky, eh? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

144 posted on 10/24/2003 11:24:58 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; TheAngryClam
Yep - he sues FR first in Federal Court, using that to yank up IPs, pulled posts, even FReepmail from offending posters. Those who live out of state get joined to the original action, and the Florida FReepers get named in a separate state court suit.
145 posted on 10/24/2003 11:25:13 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: honeygrl
Thanks for posting that info -- nice to see facts in this case! Much appreciated!
146 posted on 10/24/2003 11:25:21 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny); Chancellor Palpatine; Jim Robinson
Thank you for posting that.

I suspect (gotta CYA) Chancellor Palpatine has been looking into this personally because he has been considering doing this to certain FR posters here himself. I think several posters used to bring up his previous screen name and his perverted Free Republic pronouncements about his personal life under his prior screen name.

he is a vindictive malcontent troll.

147 posted on 10/24/2003 11:25:56 AM PDT by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

Online libel bibliography

Allison, G. Burgess and Roberta Ramo. The Lawyer's Guide to the Internet. Chicago, IL.: American Bar Association, 1995.
Ashley, Paul Pritchard. Say It Safely: Legal Limits in Publishing, Radio, and Television. 4th ed. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1972.
Banks, Michael A. Web Psychos, Stalkers, and Pranksters: How to Protect Yourself in Cyberspace. Scottsdale, AZ.: The Coriolus Group, 1997.
Brinson, Dianne J. Internet Law & Business Handbook: A Practical Guide. Menlo Park, CA.: Ladera Press,1998.
Hance, Olivier, et al. Business and Law on the Internet. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Cavazos, Edward A. and Gavino Morin. Cyberspace and the Law: Your Rights and Duties in the On-Line World. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1994.
Cooper, Jonathan, ed. Liberating Cyberspace: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and the Internet. Chicago, IL.: Pluto Press, 1998.
Corn-Revere, Robert. Rationales & Rationalizations: Regulating The Electronic Media. Washington, D.C.:Media Institute, 1997.
Delta, George B. and Jeffrey H. Matsuura. Law of the Internet. Aspen, CO.: Aspen Law and Business, 1997.

Source: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3967

148 posted on 10/24/2003 11:26:14 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
Or individually, as it's easier to push around a single person than multiple defendants.

I'm having serious CivPro flashbacks.

149 posted on 10/24/2003 11:26:17 AM PDT by Modernman ("I'm just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe."- Jango Fett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: John Beresford Tipton
A federal court sitting in a diversity case, i.e. between residents of different states applies the state substantive law (of the state which has the closer nexus to the litigation). This was decided by the US Supreme court before the War in a famous case called Erie v. Thompkins.

That's an awfully bizarre rule. One would think that due process would require that the defendant in the suit be subject to the laws of his state, not the state of whoever doesn't like what he's doing. It's like saying we should be subject to the Sharia if we disparage Mohammed.

150 posted on 10/24/2003 11:26:50 AM PDT by inquest ("Where else do gun owners have to go?" - Lee Atwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
EXACTLY! With FR being sued, as well as individual posters, FR could cease to exist.

If we truly believe that we are entering into the biggest political battle of our lives, as evidenced by 2002, 2003, and California, ANY EXCUSE given will be used to bring down FR. Look at Bennett and Rush.
151 posted on 10/24/2003 11:27:03 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife (You may forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
Nope. He doesn't get elevated to the status of a public person just because he hit media notoriety as a result of the defamation. Besides, even if he were, its still actionable.
152 posted on 10/24/2003 11:27:26 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practise to deceive! Nice try but no cigar! This is a message board where people come to state their opinions and debate issues
153 posted on 10/24/2003 11:27:38 AM PDT by ruoflaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Erie's being brought up by myself and others.

That should cause the worst flashbacks, especially if you also took something like Federal Courts (i.e. CivPro, but more arcane)
154 posted on 10/24/2003 11:28:10 AM PDT by TheAngryClam (Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ckca
GOOD FOR YOU!!! Thanks from a grateful nation of FReepers!
155 posted on 10/24/2003 11:28:12 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"Could he be sued for practicing proctology absent a license?"

Somehow the phrase "Physician (counselor), heal thyself" comes to mind. But nobody here should be so foolish as to dare to use it to refer to a real person, so I won't.

After all, we have been warned by someone who apparently does not understand or have a healthy respect for the process of "discovery," which has prevented a lot of vile, abusive, frivilous legal actions -- brought by members of the group of blood-sucking whores with briefcases that has ruined this country -- from ever seeing the light of day.......

156 posted on 10/24/2003 11:29:04 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; TheAngryClam
Yep - he sues FR first in Federal Court, using that to yank up IPs, pulled posts, even FReepmail from offending posters.

Not much Jim could do in that situation. Even if he defies a court order, that just means federal marshals come in and seize the servers and such. If he were to erase stuff, he'd be charged with destruction of evidence or whatnot.

157 posted on 10/24/2003 11:29:18 AM PDT by Modernman ("I'm just a simple man, trying to make my way in the universe."- Jango Fett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: general_re
14k posts is extreme. Aside from famous, hi-profile celebs, there are not many libel suits. I think the average libel lawsuit takes 4 years.

"It's hard to win a libel case given the framework the US Supreme Court has erected in order to protect First Amendment interests, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974)."

Source: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.03/letitdie.html

158 posted on 10/24/2003 11:30:15 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
I think you have hit the nail on the head in this one -- DemocRATs would like nothing better than take down FR and some Freepers are leading the way with their lack of responsibility in posing! Maybe they do it for a reason and that reason does not benefit FR at all!

We saw the time Jim had when the Wash Post and the LA Times decided to sue. That is probably nothing compared to what could happen if the ACLU and the husband's lawyer came after this site.

Don't understand why Freepers cannot see this is good info that has been put and should be heeded. This "freedom of speech" at all costs on here is a ridiculous argument. They need to put up their own site if they want to say anything they want about anybody!
159 posted on 10/24/2003 11:30:23 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
OK Jack McCoy, answer this-How could it poossible be slanderous to say:

"Based on what I've seen, IMHO MS is an adulterous, cruel, lying attempted murder" ???

Are you telling us that this is actionable, even with the first 6 words in the statement?

160 posted on 10/24/2003 11:31:48 AM PDT by Warren_Piece (Truth Hits Everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,761-1,774 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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