Topic Overview
Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. While there was a time when truthful but damaging statements were seen as such that is no longer the case today. Libel law protects the right of individuals to be secure in their reputations. Current libel and slander laws serve to allow people who have been defamed to restore their reputation and receive compensation. While libel and slander laws are meant to protect reputation they may also be used as weapons against criticism, inciting a chilling effect. Libel cases involve the plaintiff proving that all of the (7) required elements apply to the alleged defamatory material. As various forms of new media emerge the opportunities for defamatory speech increase, requiring the law to adapt. Libel law has been tailored to be applicable to various types of public figure.
Libel lawsuits not only involve reputation, but may also be over emotional distress. A libelous story has the potential to simultaneously injure someone's reputation in addition to upsetting him/her emotionally. There are two distinct categories of emotional distress suits, both of which require the plaintiff to prove various elements.
Defining Key Terms
Slander: Spoken words that damage reputation.
Libel: Written defamation
Damages: Monetary compensation that a person who has suffered loss or injury may receive in court. Damages may compensate for actual loss or be punitive as punishment for illegal conduct.
SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation): A lawsuit intended to silence critics, curbing their First Amendment rights. An instance in which libel law is used as a weapon to prevent speech from occurring in the first place.
Burden of Proof: The requirement for a party to demonstrate one or more claims by presenting evidence. In libel law the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
Libel Per Se: A state considered to be defamatory on its face requiring no further proof.
Libel Per Quod: When the matter by itself does not appear to be defamatory, requiring proof of the statement's injurious nature.
Actual Malice: The newer standard of fault. A statement made knowing it is false or with reckless disregard for its truth.
Public Figure: A plaintiff who is in the public spotlight, usually voluntarily. He/she must prove the defendant acted with actual malice to win.
All Purpose Public Figure: A person who occupies a position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes.
Limited Purpose Public Figure: A person who has attained public status within a narrow set of circumstances.
Involuntary Public Figure: A person who does not necessarily thrust themselves into public controversies voluntarily but is drawn into specific issues.
Private Figure: A plaintiff who cannot be categorized as either a public figure or a public official. Private figures are required to prove negligence, not actual malice.
Negligence: The failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. In libel law, negligence is usually the minimum level of fault a plaintiff must prove.
Strict Liability: A defendant is automatically responsible for damages. Fault is not required to receive damages.
Emotional Distress: Serious mental anguish.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Extreme intentional or reckless conduct causing the plaintiff emotional harm.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Careless breach of duty that causes the plaintiff serious emotional harm.
Important Cases
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): Sullivan, a police commissioner filed a libel claim against the newspaper over a civil rights' advertorial discussing police violence against marchers. A revolutionary case which established a new standard of fault to libel cases involving public officials. In order for a public official to prove libel he/she must show that the defendant acted with actual malice.
Relevant Doctrine
The Plaintiff's Libel Case: (1) A statement of fact (2) that is published, (3) that is of and concerning the plaintiff, (4) that is defamatory, (5) that is false and (6) that causes damage or harm and (7) for which the defendant is at fault.
Current Issues or Controversies
Considering the nature of the internet as a platform for self expression the issue of libelous statements becomes inevitable, how should the government go about regulating it?
My Questions & Concerns
1. Why is there a distinction between libel and slander? Are the two treated differently?
2. Could a corporation sue for libel?
References
Trager, R., Russomanno, J. & Ross, S.D. (2012), The law of journalism and mass communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment