Defamation Libel The publication or broadcast of any statement that injures someones reputation or lowers that persons esteem in the community Libel Slander Defamation Civil wrongs tort Used to be handled with duals Less damages for slander spoken vs libel written Now the burden is on plaintiff to prove falsity or defendant to prove truth Expensive time consuming Washington Post spent 23million defending libel Phillip Morse won 10billion Outrageous awards Complicated and Confusing Jury s are likely swayed SLAPP strategic lawsuits against public participation protects poor people from hiring lawyers for frivolous lawsuits To win a libel suit a plaintiff must prove The libel was published A third person other than the plaintiff and defendant must hear or see Must reach a significant majority of the public The words were of and concerning the plaintiff Identification name nickname references to identify an individual descriptions Group identification small enough group to identify Once people are dead you are free to defame their name The material is defamatory The words are hurtful and can lower someones reputation Libel Perse words that are libel on the face murderer rapist etc Libel Perquod under the circumstances make a libelous statement pregnant Both burden of proof on the plaintiff Evidence The material is false falsity reasonable care Private persons who sue the media must prove negligence failure to exercise Individuals who have been deemed a public persons in a libel suit has to prove the defendant had actual malice Evidence has to go to the Sting what was said Minor errors don t go to the Sting The defendant was at fault Republication rule Anyone who reproduces a libel statement is guilty including the person the statement was said about Centar Guilty knowledge You must know or should have known it was a defamatory false statement before distribution It is tough to stop publication before it is published Communication decency act holds harmless the internet service providers unless Centar is involved or unless they are the author of the site Harm lower reputation 6th Implying criminal behavior Sexual references and implication to sexual activity Personal habits Ridicule Rhetorical hyperbole silliness Innuendo implied defamation Jury trials A Words in light of their ordinary meaning B C Words in content D Pure opinion is constitutionally protected but provable fact is not protected can be Sources of Libel Defamation in business Professionals protected more than regular individuals defamatory Single mistake rule one time is okay pattern of incompetence is not protected Trade libel criticism of a product must prove it caused you to lose money 1 Statement about the product were false 2 Specific monetary laws has to be attributed to the statement 3 Comments were motivated by ill will or actual malice knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth Defamation any communication that holds a person up to contempt hatred or ridicule or scorn and lowers a persons reputation in the community Tort civil wrong against another person or property of another Libel published or broadcast communication that lowers reputation of an individual by holding him or her up to contempt ridicule or scorn Slander oral defamation Survival statues a statute that permits an heir to continue to maintain a lawsuit if the plaintiff dies after the suit was filed but before it was resolved NY Times v Sullivan Shifted strict liability to plaintiff to actual malice Actual malice proof of knowledge of falsity or proof of reckless disregard for the truth Public officials plaintiff has to prove clear and convincing evidence of actual malice recklessness for the truth should expect their work to be scrutinized criticized Seditious Libel Debate on public issues should be wide open and public officials Public official categories Public figure Anyone elected to office is a public official Depending on nature of job those hired for government job may qualify as public Not everyone who works for government is a public official substantial responsibility persons in a libel action or great control over government All purpose public figures celebrity athlete people who occupy persuasive power and influence in the community Limited purpose figures Hutchenson v Proxmire 1 public controversy must exist before the publication of the libelous matter and have impact on the individuals beyond those directly involved 2 plaintiff must have voluntarily participated in this controversy 3 plaintiff took a role in influencing public opinion regarding controversy accomplished through access to mass media Nature of the story Plaintiff must prove actuarial malice if statement concerns 1 Manner in which the plaintiff conducts him herself in office 2 Plaintiffs general fitness to hold that job Public person vs private persons depends on Nature of controversy The Plaintiff s Role Was the plaintiff actually involved in the controversy that gave rise to the defamation or was he simply the periphery Was the participation voluntary or was he she drawn into the controversy by the mass media Businesses as public figures Standards 1 5 1 Did the business use a highly unusual advertising or promotional scheme to draw attention to itself Is the business well known to the average person in the area where it has a presence Is the business regulated by the government 2 3 4 Did the libelous comment about the business focus on a matter of public concern 5 Has the business undergone frequent and intense scrutiny by the media Public figures maintain status over time only in regard to the issues that generated the public person s status today Gertz vs Robert B Welch mere negligence vs gross negligence implies a greater degree of carelessness on the part of the defendant Negligence 1 reliance on untrustworthy source 2 not reading misreading pertinent documents 3 failure to check with obvious source 4 carelessness in editing new handling 5 whether theres time to investigate the story 6 whether it sounded probable Actual Malice Knowledge of Falsity Reckless Disregard for Truth A Plaintiff must prove actual malice w clear and convincing evidence B The Supreme Court has instructed appellate courts to re examine the evidence in the case to determine that the record establishes actual malice w convincing clarity the defendants conduct was intentional or reckless the defendants conduct was extreme or outrageous the defendants conduct caused the plaintiff
View Full Document
Unlocking...