FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text] Question: What is defamation? Answer: An attack by speech on the good reputation of a person or business entity. Speech that involves a public figure--such as a corporation--is only defamatory if it is false and said with actual malice. It also must be factual rather than an expression of an opinion. In the United States, because of our strong free speech protections, it is almost impossible to prove defamation of a public figure. [back to notice text] Question: What is the legal definition of defamation? Answer: The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: (1) A publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of plaintiff. [back to notice text] Question: Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media? Answer: Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities." [back to notice text] Question: Can an opinion be defamatory? Answer: No ? but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database"). [back to notice text] Question: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures? Answer: Yes. A private figure claiming defamation ? your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop ? only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement. A public figure must show "actual malice" ? that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. [back to notice text] Question: What is a "fair and true report"? Answer: A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader. [back to notice text] Question: What is a "fair and true report"? Answer: A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader. [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. [back to notice text] Question: Can I be sued for publishing somebody else's private facts? Answer: Some jurisdictions allow lawsuits for the publication of private facts. In California, for example, the elements are (1) public disclosure; (2) of a private fact; (3) that is offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) which is not a legitimate matter of public concern. Publication on a blog would generally be considered public disclosure. However, if a private fact is deemed "newsworthy," it may be legal to print it even if it might be considered "offensive to a reasonable person." [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: How do I know if a private fact is "newsworthy"? Answer: A private fact is newsworthy if some reasonable members of the community could entertain a legitimate interest in it. Courts generally recognize that the public has a legitimate interest in almost all recent events, even if it involves private information about participants, as well as a legitimate interest in the private lives of prominent or notorious figures (such as actors, actresses, professional athletes, public officers, noted inventors, or war heroes). Newsworthiness is not limited to reports of current events, but extends to articles for the purposes of education, amusement, or enlightenment. However, a court may look at whether the private fact is pertinent to an otherwise newsworthy story. [back to notice text] Question: What is a statement of verifiable fact? Answer: A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses": A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim. This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff." [back to notice text] Question: Does it make any difference if I am commenting on a product or company rather than a person? Answer: Product disparagement law prohibits certain false claims about another's goods or services. While a defamatory statement harms the reputation and character of a person or corporation, a product disparaging statement harms the marketability of the goods being disparaged. Product disparagement is typically harder to prove. [back to notice text] Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation? Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence. [back to notice text] Question: How does the First Amendment to the Constitution affect defamation? Answer: The free speech guarantees under the Constitution protect certain speech and commentary. The degree of protection generally depends on whether the person commented about is a private or public figure and whether the statement is regarding a private or public matter. According to the New York Times rule (from the case New York Times v. Sullivan), when the plaintiff is a public figure and the matter is one of public concern, the plaintiff must prove "malice" or "reckless disregard" on the part of the defendant. If both parties are private individuals, there is less protection for the speech because the plaintiff only needs to prove negligence. [back to notice text] Question: Does it make any difference if I am commenting on a product or company rather than a person? Answer: Product disparagement law prohibits certain false claims about another's goods or services. While a defamatory statement harms the reputation and character of a person or corporation, a product disparaging statement harms the marketability of the goods being disparaged. Product disparagement is typically harder to prove. [back to notice text] Question: What is the difference between libel and slander? Answer: Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium such as a writing, picture, sign or electronic broadcast. Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form such as speech. [back to notice text] Question: What is disparagement? Answer: As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999), disparagement is "A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff." [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 libel? Answer: Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What is the legal definition of defamation? [back to notice text] Question: What is a preliminary injunction? Answer: An order by the court requiring the defendant to do or refrain from doing some action pending a full trial on the merits of the lawsuit. Sometimes in intellectual property litigation, the property owner, soon after filing the complaint, will make a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to stop doing those things the plaintiff alleges are infringing the plaintiff's intellectual property rights. [back to notice text] Question: What are the factors the court considers in issuing a preliminary injunction? Answer: Traditionally, a party seeking a preliminary injunction is required to show five basic factors: (1) that there is a probability of success at the ultimate trial on the merits of the claim; (2) that the plaintiff will undergo "irreparale injury" pending a full trial on the merits; (3) that a preliminary injunction will preserve the status quo which preceded the dispute; (4) that the hardships favor the plaintiff; and (5)that a preliminary injunction will favor the public interest and protect third parties. [back to notice text] Question: What are "Exemplary Damages"? Answer: Exemplary damages are punitive damages, which are defined as "Damages awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit." Punitive damages are intended to punish and thereby deter blameworthy conduct. The Supreme Court has held that three guidelines help determine whether a punitive-damages award violates constitutional due process: (1) the reprehensibility of the conduct being punished; (2) the reasonableness of the relationship between the harm and the award; and (3) the difference between the award and the civil penalties authorized in comparable cases. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589 (1996)." [back to notice text] Question: What is a "Permanent Injunction"? Answer: An injunction is "A court order commanding or preventing an action. * To get an injunction, the complainant must show that there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law and that an irreparable injury will result unless the relief is granted... [A]permanent injunction [is] [a]n injunction granted after a final hearing on the merits. * Despite its name, a permanent injunction does not necessarily last forever." [back to notice text] Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim? Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements: a publication to one other than the person defamed; a false statement of fact; that is understood as a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice. [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 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.

Topic maintained by USF Law School - IIP Justice Project