Topic Overview:
Defamation is defined as untruthful communication that
damages an individual’s reputation. It is the umbrella term under which the law
categorizes libel and slander. Libel is false, written information that
damages a person’s reputation. Generally, the laws against defamation,
particularly libel, serve as a preventative measure for future cases of libel.
When it comes to an actual lawsuit, the plaintiff’s duty is
to bring about an assertion of fact, because the expression of opinion cannot
be libelous. Furthermore, the statement must have been made public prior to the
case, otherwise it will not be considered libelous. In the case of libel, the
re-publisher of the libel can be held as responsible as the author of the
libel.
In libel law, there is a distinction in fault standards,
depending whether the case involves a matter of public concern. The ruling in
this manner minimized the possible chilling effect of libel suits and offers
more space for freedom of expression in journalism and the media.
Any form of extreme or outrageous conduct that causes an
individual’s emotional distress or harm is illegal, and can be brought to
court, especially if the plaintiff is a public official or figure. The plaintiff
can sue the defendant for infliction of emotional distress even if that harm
was cause by accident. Still, plaintiff has to be able to prove that the harm
was done and that it was an immediate result of the said infliction. In the
media, there are rarely the cases that can prove infliction, since the media
has no duty to use due care.
Defining Key Terms:
Sedition Act of
1798: federal legislation that made it illegal to oppose or resist any
law imposed by the U.S., and to publish, write or print any kind of criticism
directed at the Congress or the President.
SLAPP (strategic
lawsuit against public participation): A lawsuit whose purpose is to suppress
critics’ First Amendment rights by harassing them into silence.
Communication
Decency Act (CDA): One of the government’s greatest attempts to
regulate online content.
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.
Deposition:
testimony by a witness conducted outside a courtroom and intended to be used in
preparation for trial.
Bootstrapping:
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.
Strict liability:
A defendant is automatically responsible for damages.
Intentional inflict
of emotional distress: extreme and outrageous intentional or reckless
conduct causing plaintiff’s 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 – The court ruled that the evidence brought to the court was not
sufficient to prove the plaintiff’s case, as well as the State court of Alabama
did not provide sufficient safeguards for the freedom of expression for the
defendants.
Hustler Magazine Inc.v. Falwell – Initially, the jury ruled on the infliction of Falwell’s
emotional distress claim. In the appeal, the court affirmed the case against
the petitioners.
Relevant Doctrine:
Plaintiff’s Libel Case
In order to be libelous, the plaintiff’s case must be:
- A statement of fact
- That is published,
- That is of and concerning the plaintiff,
- That is defamatory,
- That is false and
- That causes damage or harm and
- For which the defendant is at fault.
The Dendrite Test
In order for the plaintiff’s anonymous case to be seen as
libelous, the plaintiff must:
- Undertake efforts to notify the anonymous party that he or she is the subject of a subpoena or order of disclosure.
- Identify the precise, alleged actionable speech made by each anonymous poster.
- Show prima facie evidence that the case is strong enough to withstand a motion to dismiss.
- If the case is strong enough, the court must then balance the defendant’s First Amendment right to anonymous speech against the strength of the case presented by the plaintiff and the need to identify the defendant for the case to proceed.
Actual malice
- Knowledge of falsity or
- Reckless regard for the truth
”Reckless disregard”
Criteria
- Urgency of the story (if there is time to check the information)
- Source reliability (if the source is trustworthy)
- Story believability (if some further examination is necessary)
Limited-Purpose Public
Figure
In order for the case to be libelous:
1. A public controversy must exist before the publication of
the allegedly libelous statement.
2. The plaintiff must have in some way participated voluntarily
in trying to resolve this controversy.
3. The plaintiff’s participation actively sought to influence
public opinion regarding the controversy.
Intentional infliction
of emotional distress
In plaintiff’s case, in order to win, the defendant:
1. Was extreme and outrageous
2. Involved actual malice, if plaintiff is a public official or
public figure, and
3. Caused plaintiff’s severe emotional distress.
Negligent infliction
of emotional distress
Plaintiff’s case must prove that:
- 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.
Current Issues/
Controversies
Recently, the U.S. president Donald Trump was sued for libel
and won.
The issue revolving around this case is the timing of the
lawsuit, followed by the court’s decision to rule it in favor of Mr. Trump.
Namely, the results from the case have been made known only ten days before Mr.
Trump’s inauguration January 20th. Additionally, the 2017 lawsuit Jacobus v. Trump had very similar
arguments to a case Chicago Tribune v.
Trump, which Trump lost.
So, one of the main questions, aside from the timing, is the
determination of the standards in the cases. Naturally, the courts and
officials are often times ruling according to their right to discreteness,
however, it has its limits. In the Jacobus
case, Mr. Trump’s tweets were dismissed as libel, and defined as a part of
political and campaign speech, hence being further defined as opinions rather
than falsely spread facts. On the other hand, as Mr. Trump’s tweets would often
become viral depending on their context, it is hard to say whether or not those
were intended to cause harm to the plaintiff in the Jacobus case.
Regardless, there is a high possibility that the results of
the case were directly influenced by Mr. Trump’s position as a powerful public
figure and his political impact among different officials.
My Questions/
Concerns
1. Do the anonymous cases get the same priority as public
figure libel cases?
2. How many successful cases of tracing down the anonymous
sources and lawsuits against them are there?
3. Are there a consistent and stable standards among courts for
proving emotional distress?
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment