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 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: May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation? Answer: One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law. [back to notice text] Question: Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party? Answer: No, they are not required to delete. 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law. [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 are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements? Answer: The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false): Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959) Calling an attorney a "crook" Describing a woman as a call girl Accusing a minister of unethical conduct Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son Not-libelous: Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context) Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank" Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch" Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer" Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

Topic maintained by USF Law School - IIP Justice Project