|
[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 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 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 is Malice or "Actual Malice"?
Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamaton claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard. One cannot be held liable for publishing untrue statements about public figures (or companies) without being found to have acted with "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.
| 
