Libel Spot
Libel
Is
Defamatory Statements
Defamation Per Se refers to defamatory statements that are so vicious and the harm is so obvious.[1]Canadian defamation law refers to defamation law as it stands in both common law and civil law jurisdictions in Canada. As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in the province of Quebec where private law is derived from French civil law).[7]
HG ORG Legal Resources
Libel is defamatory statements and/or pictures published in print or writing; or broadcast in the media, such as over the radio, on TV or in film. The publication does not need to be made to more than one person to qualify as libel. However, it must be represented as a fact, not an opinion. If one libels the reputation of a deceased person, the target’s heirs may be able to bring an action for damages. [1]
Oral defamatory statements are categorized as slander. Damages for slander are generally more difficult to identify and prove; although when malice is involved, it can be easier to accomplish. These statements must also be represented as fact, rather than just an opinion, to be considered slanderous. Slander of title refers to a remark regarding property ownership which maligns the owner and his/her ability to transfer the property, and results in a monetary loss. [1]
Defamation Law - US
ABA - Media, Privacy, and Defamation Law Committee
The Media, Privacy, and Defamation Law Committee concentrates on the law of and insurance coverage for media law issues, privacy law developments, and defamation law concerns. [1]
Our topics are wide-ranging within these spheres, including insurance coverage for controversial news reporting, invasion of publicity rights, unbiased press coverage, reducing liability exposure, freedom-of-information litigation, identity theft, maintaining a positive relationship with an insurance carrier, public access to court hearings, and a plethora of other subjects.[1]
Defamation Law - Positive Jurisprudence
Over the past fifteen years, national and international courts have developed a body of case law that seeks to reduce defamation’s infringement on freedom of expression, a right guaranteed in treaties and constitutions around the world.[1]
Courts in democratic countries have played an especially significant role in reform because free speech is vital to their political system. The decisions exhibit noteworthy trends in legal change and frequently refer to each other as persuasive precedent. This Article presents an overview of such positive jurisprudence and focuses on decisions from international, Commonwealth, and United States courts.[1]
First Amendment Center
The First Amendment was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms. Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. [1]
Kate Winslet wins
libel case against Daily Mail
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.[1]
libel case against Daily Mail
Anti-Defamation League
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an international Jewish non-governmental organization based in the United States. Describing itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" while it "[advocates] for Israel [...] with policymakers, the media and the public" and "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide.[1]
Brian Martin: writings on defamation
The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny. This leaflet provides information about legal rights and options for action for people who may be threatened by a legal action or who are worried about something they want to say or publish.[2]
Brian Martin: When you've been threatened or sued, see especially:
Defamation law and free speech, a leaflet with information about legal rights and options for action for people who may be threatened by a legal action or who are worried about something they want to say or publish. 1996. [3]
Abstract
How To Make Defamation Threats
&
Actions Backfire
Brian Martin and Truda Gray
Australian Journalism Review,
Vol. 27, No. 1, July 2005, pp. 157-166
Defamation threats and actions often discourage free speech, including in low-profile cases that never come to the attention of journalists or lawyers.[4]
To respond to oppressive uses of defamation law, it is useful to learn from the ways that other sorts of attacks (such as attacks on protesters) backfire on the perpetrators.[4]
The main methods for ensuring that appropriate outrage occurs in relation to a defamation threat or action are to expose what happens, validate the target, interpret the action as censorship, avoid or discredit the courts, and resist intimidation and bribery. [4]
Courtney Love Wins Defamation Twitter Case
Defamation actions often serve as a form of legal intimidation, suppressing free speech. Threats of defamation suits are more frequent than suits themselves, and can have the same effect. In Australia, where defamation laws are quite favourable to plaintiffs, defamation law is an especially powerful tool against free speech (Pullan 1994). [4]
Before proceeding further, it is important to note the effect of defamation law on any commentary about problems with defamation law.[4]
In giving examples, writers must be careful not to make themselves, or their publishers, vulnerable to defamation suits. As a result, it is risky to tell the full story about many cases. Nevertheless, it is possible to give a few illustrations. [4]
Anyone familiar with defamation law will realise that many of the threats described here are unlikely to result in writs, and that many of the individuals had adequate defences and did not need to worry.[4]
For example, the teacher, in writing a report on a student, would be protected by qualified privilege. But few individuals in such cases are knowledgeable about defamation law; many of them are easily intimidated by a threat and even more so by a writ.[4]
Defamation law thus operates to inhibit free speech in a wide range of circumstances unknown even to those who follow the big cases. [4]
What can be done? The usual prescription is law reform. This has a long history of failure. Law reform commissions have been recommending change for decades, but usually with no impact. Some proposals for unifying Australian defamation laws would actually make free speech more difficult. [4]
The problems have remained the same over a long period: defamation law is very expensive, slow and complicated. It is not very good for protecting reputations - especially for anyone who does not have a fair bit of money - and is regularly used in ways that inhibit free expression.[4]
A wider problem is that defamation is only one of the legal means used to suppress free speech. For example, the Tasmanian timber company Gunns has sued environmentalists using a variety of torts. Legal actions attacking free speech are commonly called SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Donson 2000; Pring and Canan 1996; Walters 2003). Defamation is one of many types of actions used in SLAPPs.[4]
To maximise backfire, publicising the defamation threat or suit is a powerful tool. For example, if a public official threatens to sue over criticisms, the critic can report the criticisms, plus the threat, in leaflets, emails and/or a website. To publicise the threat or suit, it can be advantageous to have a supporter or support group that takes responsibility for getting the message out, thereby protecting the defendant from legal complications. [4]
The Poor, the Homeless
&
People With Disabilities
Are Often
The Victims
Of An Uncaring System
How to make defamation threats and actions backfire
Brian Martin and Truda Gray
Australian Journalism Review,
Vol. 27, No. 1, July 2005, pp. 157-166
Validate the target
A prime way to reduce outrage over an injustice is to denigrate the target. The poor, the homeless and people with disabilities are often the victims of an uncaring system. By blaming them for their plight, outrage is reduced. [4]
When people are sued or threatened with defamation actions, the implication is that they have broken the law and done something objectionable. In addition, in some cases defendants are verbally abused, often via rumours.[4]
To resist this process of devaluation, defendants and their allies should do everything possible to present an honest, principled, upright image. Depending on the case, they can present themselves as defenders of the truth, as straight speakers, as principled objectors to censorship.[4]
Thai Defamation Case
Seen as Media Freedom
Litmus Test
Seen as Media Freedom
Litmus Test
Defamation and the art of backfire
Truda Gray and Brian Martin
Deakin Law Review,
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006, pp. 115-136.
Legal discussions of defamation commonly focus on defamation law, with relative neglect of struggles that take place over defamation matters.[5]
To understand defamation struggles, we introduce backfire theory: if something is perceived as unjust and information about it is communicated to relevant audiences, it has the potential to backfire against those held responsible.[5]
Defamation suits have the potential to backfire when they are seen as oppressive or contrary to free speech. There are several types of actions by plaintiffs that can inhibit this backfire effect, including cover-up, devaluation of the defendant, reinterpretation and intimidation. [5]
Menorca:
INC behind libel case to silence me
INC behind libel case to silence me
What to do when you've been defamed
Being the target of scurrilous gossip is no fun. Will suing for defamation help - or make things worse? Brian Martin explores options.[6]
Everyone's a critic these days, but defamation laws still exist in the Internet age.[8]
The Law of Libel
Is Concerned with Defamatory Writings
Alasdair Taylor
Thu, 22/03/2012
The law of libel is concerned with defamatory writings; whereas the law of slander is concerned with defamatory speech. There are some differences in the laws relating to slander and libel. [9]
It used to be thought that defamatory statements on a website would always be libellous rather than slanderous. [9]
However, the English courts have taken the view that some internet communications are more akin to speech than the traditional print, and that slander rather than libel should apply to those communications. Nonetheless, the focus of this post is libel.[9]
A defamatory statement is not actionable unless it is published. Unfortunately for webmasters, when libel lawyers say "published", they mean communicated to one person (not including the person defamed). [9]
You can libel someone by writing about them on a personal blog, providing at least one person accesses the defamatory material.[9]
That is not to say that a defamatory publication on your personal blog carries the same risk as a defamatory publication on, say, the BBC website.[9]
Libels on high-traffic sites are more likely to be discovered by the person attacked than libels on low-traffic sites. Also, potential libel claimants may let a libel pass if it hasn't been widely disseminated - knowing that a court case would itself ensure the widest possible audience for the slur.[9]
The defence of "justification" arises where the defendant in a libel action claims that the statements are true. [9]
One might expect that in these circumstances a claimant would be obliged to demonstrate the untruth of the defamatory statements - but that is not so. It is for the defendant who relies upon a justification defence to prove the truth of the libel. This is often easier said than done.[9]
The defence of "fair comment" may be available to a defendant who can show that the defamatory statement amounted to an opinion which was honestly held and based up facts which were true.[9]
There are a range of other defences which tend to apply in specific circumstances. The most important of these other defences is "qualified privilege".[9]
Qualified privilege
There are three kinds of "qualified privilege".
The first kind, sometimes called "classic common law qualified privilege", protects disclosures in certain specific situations, but only where the person making the defamatory statement believes that it is true. For example, this kind of qualified privilege defence may protect statements made in an employee reference.[9]
The second kind may be called "statutory qualified privilege". This refers to a range of specific defences under the Defamation Act 1996 relating to the publication of fair and accurate reports of the proceedings of certain public bodies.[9]
The third (and most interesting) kind is sometimes called "Reynolds-style qualified privilege". This protects certain public interest stories published in the media, providing they adhere to the standards of responsible journalism.[9]
Клевета́ — заведомо ложная порочащая информация или распространение заведомо ложных сведений, порочащих честь и достоинство другого лица или подрывающих его репутацию.[10]
Тот, кто хоть раз сталкивался с клеветой, знает какое это отвратительное явление публичной жизни человека. На что только не идут мелкие и подлые люди для того, чтобы опорочить честное имя человека. [11]
Чаще всего клевету распространяют, чтобы навредить человеку и нанести ущерб его деловой репутации. Наиболее искусные клеветники, прежде чем распространять ложные сведения, тщательно собирают информацию об объекте затем, чтобы впоследствии в мозаику фактов вплести ложь, дискредитирующую выбранный объект нападок.[11]
Rule of Law -
Is a Freedom of Expression Libelous?
Как не стать обвиняемым по статье 128.1 УК РФ «Клевета» за перепост.[12]
Клевета является предумышленным действием, связанным с намерением опорочить человека в глазах общества, путём распространения деструктивного вымысла и лжи.[13]
The legal uncertainties have made journalists, publishers and broadcasters across Europe face increasing risk of being sued for libel.there was damage in more than one State, the plaintiff could sue for the total damage in each of these States, which was contrary to the case-law of the Court: in a case of libel by a newspaper, the Court resolved the problem of plurality.[15]
President Aquino:
Online libel not meant to curb
'freedom of expression' || Feb. 19, 2014
The parents or custodian revoke the trustful relationship with the kindergarten where a relationship can no longer exist (for instance through insult, libel, assault, etc.). upsydaisy.de. The Law on Changes to the Criminal Code adopted in July 2003, which included the criminalization of libel by journalists, was annulled by the Constitutional Court in November 2003 because it was not adopted by an absolute majority.[15]
Calls on the Algerian authorities to release without delay the journalists sentenced to imprisonment for libel, to end this judicial persecution of the Algerian private media for their opinions and to halt the legal proceedings initiated [...] [15]
eur-lex.europa.eu
The balance that makes defamation law tricky is that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right of free speech. On the other hand, people should not be able to ruin the lives of others by disseminating lies to force a business to shut down or compel the breakdown of a family.[16]
Law Dictionary: When to Sue for Defamation, Slander, and Libel
Libel vs. Slander. Generally, a statement that is made in writing is libel, and an oral statement is slander. [17]
However, with increased internet usage, this line has become blurred. The focus now is on the "permanence" of the defamatory statement. [17]
For example, though instant messages are technically written statements, because of their transient nature they are arguably more akin to oral statements. Similarly, a "podcast" may be more like a written statement than an oral one because of the statement's permanence and the ease with which is may be widely disseminated.[17]
This distinction is important for establishing damages: the more permanent the statement, the more potentially harmful it is to the plaintiff in a defamation case -- the greater the damages.[17]
Can I sue someone who says or writes something defamatory about me?[18]
After a thorough trial, in which the jury listened to multiple witnesses from both sides, the jury found in favor of Ventura, finding Kyle had indeed defamed the former wrestler. The court awarded Ventura more than $1.8 million (far lower than the amount Ventura sought), consisting of $500,000 for defamation damages and an additional $1.3 million for “unjust enrichment” (meaning that Kyle and his estate wrongly profited from said defamation). The book publisher’s libel insurance will cover the $500,000.[19]
Jesse Ventura Wins $1.8 Million
in Defamation Case
Against Sniper Chris Kyle
The aggressive action taken by some businesses against those who post negative reviews online about their product or service is having a chilling effect on some reviewers who fear being sued, observers say.[20]
"It's a tremendous issue. We're running into that all over. It's cheap to threaten and expensive to defend," said Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer who specializes in free speech issues related to the internet for the Washington, D.C.- based Public Citizen Litigation Group.[20]
"So yes, many people become very quiet when they're faced with the realistic possibility that they're going to have to defend against a libel claim even if what they said is true. Because it's all very well to defend, but if it costs $10,000 to defend a true comment, well you're out $10,000. How much is it worth?"[20]
Sue for Libel?By Walter E. Block.[22]
Sue for Libel?
Losing a libel case can be disastrous. The magazine Living Marxism was actually forced into liquidation after being order to pay damages of £375,000 in a libel case in 2000.[21]
Because of this, most publishers are very nervous of libel actions. One result of this is that, faced with a threat of libel, even where the journalist believes that the story is legally sound, many publishers will choose not to run it, or to water it down.[21]
In this way the threat of a libel action can be used to prevent publication of stories that really ought to be brought to the public’s attention.[21]
Similarly, many publishers, faced with a complaint about a story that has already been published, will back down, print an apology and if necessary, agree to pay some compensation, rather than allow the case to go to court and risk huge legal costs and possibly damages. In fact, most libel claims are settled out of court, and court hearings are rare.[21]
Sanders Accused of 'Blood Libel'
By Israel's Former U.S. Ambassador
$1.8 Million for Ventura in Defamation Case.[22]
Basic Libel for Idiots.Original text by By Adam Porter, Year Zero, Dec 2002.There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken. [23]
Freedom of the Press 2010:
Libel tourism
In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it! [23]
For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be. [23]
Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed. [23]
Anyone who repeats allegations can also be sued. This is important. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true. Repeating allegations without making sure they are true is a very good way to get yourself knee deep in litigation. [23]
For example, say you wrote an email to the top 200 managers and governors of the BBC about Mr Dyke never paying his licence. That email is leaked to Magazine X who print it without making sure it is true.[23]
Although the mail's already been sent and read by all, by repeating the allegation they too are committing the same libel. 'Repetition is no defence' say lawyers. Because it isn't. [23]
There is also a defence of 'fair comment' which is somewhat vague but is basically there to stop someone being sued for saying they don't like Marks & Spencer or McDonalds or Piers Morgan. [23]
You are allowed to say that - even if you were a famous star or a very persuasive writer and it could damage them financially. That's the law. [23]
However libel does not extend to the dead. Nor is being abusive libelous. [23]
So I can say "Keith Moon was a smackhead lover of the highest order" and it's no problem. In fact I could say "every human who ever existed was a smack dealing, gun running, uncle fucker."
This is completely okay. That's UK libel! [23]
Update 2006: Expert warns of more chatroom libel awards
The Guardian, Wednesday March 22, 2006
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today.... [23]
...Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site. [23]
"The obvious and immediate potential ramification is that there will be more cases like this," said Richard Shillito, a partner at the law firm Farrer & Co. "One sees on these sites particularly unrestrained comments that people make in the heat of the moment without thinking of the legal consequences." [23]
"A lot of people post anonymously but it is possible to find out people's identity. I think people should read this judgment as a warning to be more careful about their comments."
Matt Forney:
Use Libel Laws to Sue Women
Who Accuse Men of Rape
While many people may look at Facebook as a private medium to share information, Facebook is actually considered a public forum by many. [24]
Furthermore, multiple courts in various jurisdictions have found that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy on Facebook, even when users take precautions to keep certain content “private.” The victim has to show that someone saw the post. [24]
Successfully winning a defamation suit does not require that many people saw the communication, as even an email sent to one person has provided justification for an award in other libel actions. [24]
The statement must be damaging to the individual, including to his or her reputation. This may require that the individual show how he or she was damaged from the statement, such as being ostracized from a social group or losing business at his or her store.[24]
Some states have “slander per se” standards in which certain statements are presumptively slanderous, such as statements that a person committed a crime, was professionally incompetent or was promiscuous or a carrier of a disease. [24]
Truth is a defense to a defamation lawsuit. It is not libelous or slanderous for a person to repeat a truthful statement about someone, even if the statement may damage that person’s reputation.[24]
Janice Dickinson's Lawyer Opens Up
About Bill Cosby Defamation Case
In most countries around the world, saying or writing something that’s untrue and harms the reputation of another person is a civil offense. While this has been the case for centuries, most people were essentially immune from prosecution — unless you had a public platform reaching a wide audience, meeting the bar for defamation was next to impossible.[25]
The tricky element of libel cases often rests on defining what constitutes negligence from not taking reasonable care. Did the blogger turn an obvious "blind eye to the truth" or did the blogger take time to check sources that seemed to be reliable? The circumstances and facts of each case can make all the difference to a blogger's liability exposure.[26]]
The good news for political bloggers is prominent public officials have a much tougher time proving defamation because they have to demonstrate "malice" in the blogger's intent or that the blogger acted in reckless disregard for the truth. The definition of a public official varies state to state too. In some states even a high school football coach is deemed a public official for libel cases. [26]
I'm being sued for libel by a hotel for a negative (but absolutely truthful) review I wrote about them on TripAdvisor. How can I deal with this in the most cost effective way?[27]
New defamation law will make it HARDER to sue for libel by requiring proof of 'serious harm'
Britain is known for 'libel tourism' thanks to strict defamation laws
But from tomorrow claimants will have to prove they have suffered 'serious harm' in order to win damages from authors New law will bring protection for scientists and public-interest journalism.[28]
Tort Law: Intro to Defamation (P1/4)
Is a Freedom of Expression Libelous?
Online libel not meant to curb
'freedom of expression' || Feb. 19, 2014
in Defamation Case
Against Sniper Chris Kyle
By Israel's Former U.S. Ambassador
Libel tourism
Use Libel Laws to Sue Women
Who Accuse Men of Rape
About Bill Cosby Defamation Case
