Slander, Liber & Defamation of Character

[Gregory Matthews]

People have sometimes speculated as to the extent that Internet posts might be considered to be slander, Libel, or defamation of character. The March 12, 2005 edition of the DAILY TIMES-CALL (page B-8) published a column written by attorney Stacy Chesney that I believe might be of interest to us. It should be noted that his column is specific to the law in Colorado. It either might or might not apply to laws in other places. Therefore, no legal guidance is intended by my comments here. If you have legal questions you should consult a qualified attorney, which I am not. The material that I present below is clearly adapted from the above newspaper column, but, I have adapted it, and it therefore includes my wording.

***************************************************************************

Libel is a form of defamation of character that consists of either written speech, or speech broadcast over the air.

Slander is a form of defamation of character that consists of spoken speech that is not broadcast over the air.

Defamation of character is something that damages another person’s reputation.

To win a libel/slander lawsuit all of the following must be proved:

a) The defendant told/published the allegations to another person.

That allegation damaged another person’s reputation.

c) The alleged statement was about the plaintiff.

d) The statement was false.

e) The defendant sustained actual damages due to the statement.

f) The statement was made with a required level of fault.

Additional factors are involved if the defendant is a “public figure”. The first consideration will be whether or not the statement involved a matter of public concern. If it involved a matter of public concern then there must be “clear and convincing evidence that:

a) The defendant knew the statement was false at the time of publication.

OR that the defendant had serious doubt that it was true.

In all cases, the statement made cannot be “privileged” in order to collect damages.

Actual damages are awarded when the legal conditions are met. These may consist of lost wages, lost business, public humiliation, emotional distress, and more. Punitive damages may be awarded if fraud, malice, and more motivated the publication.

************************************************************************

[Stan]

Why some people seemed to be so obsessed with the lives of others is beyond this guy.

We try and make it a rule of no personal attacks. I, and the other team members, should be watching out for that more.

Even though I doubt if there has been anything written to justify winning a law suit, as Bravus said elsewhere, we need to take the higher road.

Forewarned, some will yell censorship, when those kinds of posts are moved to a "happier land."

Thanks Gregory for posting this..

[Guest]

SOCIETAL ENTROPY...

Deaf to the Holy Spirit>>>>

More laws>>> More Police>>> More lawyers

Now when Jesus said Matt 23...every word was true..yet....

[Nicodema]

I'm quite happy with the way the moderators do their job. That includes times where they didn't think something warranted their stepping in, or didn't take my "side" on the matter -- they are always gracious and take pains to explain things, and I appreciate their objectivity.

I feel a little self-conscious here because some people made noise that sounded (to me, in the light of this thread) like someone might think I'm inclined to sue C/A for something someone posted that I found offensive. For the record, I would not. I believe in the Biblical injunction not to take brothers to court. We practiced it in the O.T.O. as well (at least, those of us who were conscientious did), as a matter of fact. Whenever I mention anything involving legalities it is intended to inform another of his or her responsibility under the law, not as a threat to either them or the forum. I just wanted to make that clear in case anyone is spreading, or attempts to spread, nonsense to the contrary where my person is concerned.

Peace out, pholx,

Nico

[Jeannieb43]

LOL [at your spelling, not at your message], Nico.

Are the "pholx" the people who do the "phishing" ??

[cricket]

Yes, they phish for ghoti!

[Nicodema]

... just so long as they are not wading for ghotoh.

[Jeannieb43]

Now THAT would be really going some!

[Nan]

I dont have a clue what you guys are on about, but I hope this does not give you collywobbles in your parallelogram. If it does you will need to purchase a wigwam for your goose's bridle.

(Both quoting the wisdom imparted to me in childhood by my maternal parent.)

[Pockey]

I'm having an Oceans 12 moment <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

collywobbles

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

My poppy uses this term all the time. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mittelgr124.gif" alt="" />

[Peter]

Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation, vs. slander, the oral act of defamation.

You often hear "Truth is the perfect defense against libel." A curious notion, not entirely supported by what goes on in the courts. Truth is a very good defense. It may prove an unshakable defense if you have $50,000 for lawyers to defend it. If you don't feel like being on the frontier of legal theory, you should build a somewhat better defense. Add on these concepts:

Avoid the impression of malice.

State the facts, and then state your opinion separately. This keeps things clear in your mind.

All wrong: "My neighbor John Smith is a stinking lush." This is wildly defamatory: an unproven, malicious ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.

Getting better: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy ? getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism ? but a governor is a public figure with less protection than John Smith, you have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.

Pretty safe: "Governor Smith consumed 14 glasses of whiskey last night at The Watering Hole Bar. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure.

What defamation is not.

Generally, a statement made about an undefinable group of people or organizations cannot be defamation. Take, "Real estate agents are crooks." It's defamatory enough, but there is no identifiable victim.

"Most of the agents at Smith Real Estate Company are crooks" is getting dicier, but it is still hard to define the victim.

"Smith Real Estate Company is a crooked company." Wham! You have a victim: Smith Real Estate Company.

[Peter]

What is Defamation of Character? Defamation includes four main points:

1) The comment must be a false statement

2) The comment is understood to be intended against another person, business, or product

3) The comment is verbalized or written to at least one other person

4) The comment is understood to damage another person's reputation

Defamation of Character is made with the intent intentional or otherwise to injure the reputation of someone else, but a really important aspect to defamation cases is that you've got to be able to prove that the comment was made with malice and that it was a false comment, says Joseph Day, Attorney at Law in Iowa City, IA

[Taylor]

My father in law says "Oh horsefeathers" when he thinks something is rediculous. Some people have the funniest sayings.

And Peter I like your illustration on "defamation" etc. Point well made

[Peter]

tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems. The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.

Many nations have various civil and criminal penalties for libel and slander, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. Some legal systems, including some in the United States, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was. [:"red"]There are four categories of statement, however, that are defamatory per se, which means they are so inherently derogatory that a plaintiff need prove only that they were made: Those are statements accusing a person of: [/]

having committed a crime

having a loathsome disease (such as leprosy long ago or AIDS now)

being unchaste (in many jurisdictions this still applies only to females)

being bad at their trade or business

[Gregory Matthews]

Peter, good comments.

[Peter]

For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held:

We hold that a private individual may recover actual damages for a defamatory publication upon proof that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the defamatory statement was false. The conduct of defamation defendants will be judged on whether the conduct was that of a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 367 N.W.2d 476, 491 (Minn. 1985). Other cases follow this reasoning. See LeDoux v. Northwest Publications, Inc., 521 N.W.2d 59, 67 (Minn. App. 1994) ("In order for a statement to be defamatory . . . it must be false."); Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 759 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. den., 479 U.S. 883 (1987) ("Libel, by definition, consists of publication of a false and unprivileged fact.").