Libel laws aim to balance the right of free speech against the protection for an individual's reputation from an unjustified attack. Rumors, innuendo, gossip, and language that exposes a person to hatred, shame, disgrace, or ridicule, as well as injures their reputation, or injures a person in their occupation all constitutes libel. Libel language is published, or in other words, written or communicated to someone other than the person being 'libeled.'
In today's world where internet and social media are engrained in our lives, libel is even more difficult to regulate. However, libel law and defamation lawsuits have prevailed showing their importance to society. John Oliver was recently sued for defamation, and this suit gave me insight into the importance of freedom of speech and the value of protecting private and public individuals.
libel: "little book." The legal term derives from the practice in Ancient Rome of publishing little books or booklets that one Roman used to defame another. The history of valuing and protecting reputation is centuries old. (written defamation)
damages: Monetary compensation that may be recovered in court by any person who has suffered loss or injury. Damages may be compensatory for actual loss or punitive as punishment for outrageous conduct.
Sedition Act of 1798: Federal legislation under which anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. The act also made it illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything that criticized the president or Congress. The act expired in 1801 and ultimately was seen as a direct violation of the First Amendment.
SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation): a lawsuit whose purpose is to harass critics into silence, often supress those critics' First Amendment rights.
Communications Decency Act (CDA): The part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that largely attempted to regulate internet content. The CDA was successfully challenged in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).
libel per se: A statement whose injurious nature is apparent and requires no further proof.
libel per quod: A statement whose injurious nature requires proof.
actual malice: In libel law, a statement made knowing it is false or with reckelss disregard for its truth.
deposition: Testimony by a witness conducted outside a courtroom and intended to be used in preparation for trial.
public figure: In libel law, a plaintiff who is in the public spotlight, usually voluntarily, and must prove the defendant acted with actual malice in order to win damages.
all-purpose public figure: In libel law, a person who occupies a position of such pervasive power and influence as to be deemed a public figure for all purposes. Public figure libel plaintiffs are required to prove actual malice.
limited-purpose public figure: In libel law, those plaintiffs who have attained public figure status within a narrow set of circumstances by thrusting themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved; this kind of public figure is more common than the all-purpose public figure.
bootstrapping: In libel law, the forbidden practice of a defendant claiming that the plaintiff is a public figure solely on the basis of the statement that is the reason for the lawsuit.
involuntary public figure: In libel law, a person who does not necessarily thrust himself or herself into public controversies voluntarily but is drawn into a given issue.
private figure: In libel law, a plaintiff who cannot be categorized as either a public figure or a public official. Generally, in order to recover damages, a private figure is required to prove not actual malice but merely negligence on the part of the defendant.
negligence: Generally, the failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. In libel law, negligence is usally the minimum level of fault a plaintiff must prove in order to receive damages.
strict liability: A defendant is automatically responsible for damages. Fault (negligence or actual malice) is not required to cover actual malice.
emotional distress: Serious mental anguish.
intentional infliction of emotional distress: Extreme and outrageous intentional or reckless conduct causing plaintiffs seere emotional harm; public offical and public figure plaintiff must show actual malice on the defendant's part.
negligent infliction of emotional distress: Careless breach of a duty that causes the plaintiff severe emotional harm.
reckless: Word used to describe actions taken with no consideration of the legal harms that might result.
Important Cases:
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)- Concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times alleging the arrest of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote.
L.B. Sullivan one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama filed libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who endorsed the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally.
Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad had factual error. Sullivan won $500,000.
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones about the conduct of public officials except when statement are made with actual malice (reckless disregard).
Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell (1988)- Jerry Falwell, a nationally known minister who was an active commentator on politics and public affairs, sued Hustler Magazine Inc, and its petitioner Larry Flynt to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Falwell won the verdict on the emotional distress claim, and was awarded $150,000. Hustler Magazine appealed the case, with the question "Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?"
The Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice."
Relevant Doctrine:
1. The Plaintiff's Libel Case: Libel plaintiffs must show that the defendant is at fault for publishing the defamatory material. The level of fault that must be proved varies according to the plaintiff's status.
1. A statement of fact
2. That is published
2. That is of an concerning the plaintiff
4. That is defamatory
5. That is false
6. That causes damage or harm and
7. For which the defendant is at fault.
2. Defamation: Distinguishing defamatory from non-defamatory statements is more art than science. Within various contexts, the following definitions of "defamatory" have been offered
- Words or images that expose another person to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
- Words or images that tend to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or deter third persons form associating or dealing with him or her.
- Words or images that subject a person to the loss of goodwill or confidence from others.
- Words or images that subject a person to scorn or ridicule.
- Words or images that tend to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion, or tend to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him or her in the minds of a substantial number in the community.
- Words or images that tend to prejudice someone in the eyes of a substantial and respectable minority of the community.
3. Actual Malice: Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
4. Reckless Disregard: 1) Urgency of the story - Is there time to check the information? 2) Source Reliability - Is the source trustworthy? 3) Story believability - Is further examination necessary?
5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
Defendants intentional or reckless conduct
- Was extreme and outrageous -beyond the bounds of decency tolerated in civilized society.
- Involved actual malice, if plaintiff is a public official or public figure, and
- Caused the plaintiff's severe emotional distress.
6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress:
- The defendant had a duty to use due care
- Negligently breached that duty
- Causing the plaintiff's severe emotional distress, and
- The breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's emotional distress.
1. Is there a time constraint on pursuing libel suits?
No comments:
Post a Comment