Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
USF Law School - IIP Justice Project
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Protest, Parody and Criticism Sites > Notices > defamed high school teacher (NoticeID 1685, http://chillingeffects.org/N/1685) Printer-friendly version

defamed high school teacher

February 16, 2005

 

Sender Information:
[Private]
Sent by: [Private]
Fischetti & Pesce, LLP
Garden City, NY, 11530, USA

Recipient Information:
[Private]
[Private]
Williston Park, NY, 11596, USA


Sent via: postal mail
Re: Re: Internet Postings Regarding [Sender]

NULL
NULL
FISCHETTI & PESCE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NULL Garden City, New York 11530 NULL
NULL
NULL
? Also Admitted in New Jersey
February 16, 2005
[Recipient]
NULL Williston Park, N.Y. 11596
Re: Internet Postings Regarding [Sender]
Dear [Recipient]:
This firm represents [Sender], and she has secured our services to contact you regarding Internet postings concerning her. Please direct all correspondence regarding this matter to our office.
It is our understanding that Internet postings attributed to you have appeared on websites or pages within your control. Further, these postings make references to our client in ways that could be damaging to her character and reputation and carry with them the potential of lowering her estimation in the eyes of the community in which she serves as a high school teacher, thereby threatening her livelihood in that regard.
One such posting mentions our client in the context of other statements regarding allegations of improprieties associated with other school officials in the district. This posting states, "Now if only someone would implicate [Sender] ... ," and thus, could be read to insinuate that [Sender] may be involved in inappropriate activity, as well. Another posting contains various "stories" detailing alleged actions and comments of [Sender], as well as a solicitation to others to come forward with their stories about her.
It is our understanding that the first posting may have been removed from the Internet. The second posting, however, remains cached at
http://64.233.161.1 04/scarch?Q=cache:P _ TaT9H8nWOJ:dan.guidonct.ws/old_sitc/politicsi sheehan. html+schools+mineola+%22M S+sheehan%22&h I=en
I
Posting such innuendo and providing a forum for the solicitation of other such material threatens to strike at the core of our client's ability to make a living in the teaching profession where she has thrived for years. A teacher is a leader in the school and in the community; indeed, that leadership is inextricably linked to the ability to practice the teaching craft. If the ability of [Sender] to hold herself out in the community as an example of integrity is diminished, so too is the utility of her training and experience because no one will view her as worthy of trust and allow her to work.
Moreover, the impact of these postings is virtually incalculable, as the medium selected is unbounded. Anyone searching our client's name on the Internet will come upon this material that potentially casts doubt on her integrity.
Please be advised that in no uncertain terms our client takes offense at the postings described herein as an assault on her character, integrity, and livelihood. She demands that the material be removed from your server immediately, and should such material not be removed immediately, and/or should such material be spoken or otherwise published again, we will make vigorous use of any and all means of legal process at our disposal to cease these assaults on our client's character and recover any and all damages available under the law. To the extent that postings have been cached in Google and cannot be removed, she demands that you immediately post a retraction and an apology,
If there are other facts that exist that clarify this matter or point to a misunderstanding on our part regarding your participation in the preparation or hosting of this material, or if you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact us. Otherwise, we expect the matter to be taken care of in accordance with the above as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,

[Attorney]
Cc: [Sender]

 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is defamation?

Answer: Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is false light invasion of privacy?

Answer: "False light" is a claim that publicity invades a person's (plaintiff's) privacy by a false statement or representation that "places the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the difference between false light invasion of privacy and defamation?

Answer: The distinction between the two is a subtle one. The false light cause of action focuses upon indignity and defamation focuses upon reputation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What defenses may be available to someone who is sued for defamation?

Answer: There are ordinarily 6 possible defenses available to a defendant who is sued for libel (published defamatory communication.)
1. Truth. This is a complete defense, but may be difficult to prove.
2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. This defense applies to "opinion" only, as compared to a statement of fact. The defendant usually needs to prove that the opinion is honestly held and the comments were not motivated by actual "malice." ( Malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth of falsity of the defamatory statement.)
3. Privilege. The privilege may be absolute or qualified. Privilege generally exists where the speaker or writer has a duty to communicate to a specific person or persons on a given occasion. In some cases the privilege is qualified and may be lost if the publication is unnecessarily wide or made with malice.
4. Consent. This is rarely available, as plaintiffs will not ordinarily agree to the publication of statements that they find offensive.
5. Innocent dissemination. In some caes a party who has no knowledge of the content of a defamatory statement may use this defense. For example, a mailman who delivers a sealed envelope containing a defamatory statement, is not legally liable for any damages that come about from the statement.
6. Plaintiff's poor reputation. Defendant can mitigate (lessen) damages for a defamatory statement by proving that the plaintiff did not have a good reputation to begin with. Defendant ordinarily can prove plaintiff's poor reputation by calling witnesses with knowledge of the plaintiff's prior reputation relating to the defamatory content.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are "special damages"? When are they awarded?

Answer: "Special damages" are awards made to plaintiffs to compensate for actual monetary losses. In a libel case, the "special damages" would be awarded to compensate for specific losses caused by the libelous speech. The plaintiff would be required to show the specific monetary losses were caused by the libelous speech, in addition to showing that the speech was libel, in order to be awarded special damages.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is offensive to a reasonable person?

Answer: To state a claim, the plaintiff must show that the matter made public was one that would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. For example, disclosing that the plaintiff returned $240,000 he found on the street was held not to be offensive, but the publication of an "upskirt" photo would likely be found to be offensive to a reasonable person.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is slander?

Answer: Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory medium, such as verbal speech. It is considered a civil injury, as opposed to a criminal offence. Actual damages must be proven for someone to be held liable for slander. The tort of slander is often compared with that of libel, which is also characterized as a defamatory statement, but one made in a fixed form, such as writing.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is libel?

Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim?


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?

Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are "special damages"? When are they awarded?

Answer: "Special damages" are awards made to plaintiffs to compensate for actual monetary losses. In a libel case, the "special damages" would be awarded to compensate for specific losses caused by the libelous speech. The plaintiff would be required to show the specific monetary losses were caused by the libelous speech, in addition to showing that the speech was libel, in order to be awarded special damages.


[back to notice text]


Question: If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?

Answer: Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting "special damages" ? the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff's failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon)

If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be "substantially as conspicuous" as the original alleged defamation.


Topic maintained by USF Law School - IIP Justice Project

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts