In Reply to: Re: What happened to Consumer Reports? (nt) posted by Stephæn on March 2, 2000 at 09:51:26:
. . . is that the truth of the statement is an absolute defense to a lawsuit for libel.Here is an outline of what constitues common-law defamation; that is, the law that has evolved in the courts, not the law enacted by statutes.
Defamation requires:
(1) Defamatory Language;
(2) Of or concerning the plaintiff;
(3) Publication thereof by defendant to a third person; and
(4) Damage to the plaintiff's reputation.If the defamation concerns a matter of public concern, the Constitution requires the plaintiff to prove two additional elements:
(5) Falsity of the defamatory language; and
(6) Fault on the part of the defendant.A public concern involves statements about public figures: politicians, professional athletes, anyone recognized as a "public figure." The law views corpoations as "artificial persons"; that is, a corporation may be defamed much as a person could be.
When a person posts on this site it qualifies as a publication of the statements made. A publication is the intent to publish (diseminate) the information; note that intent to defame is not necessary.
Finally, a "public figure" (a corpoation) must prove malice on the part of the defendant to prevail; malice includes:
1. knowlege that the staement was false; and
2. Reckless disregard as to whether the statement was false.This is more than was requested probably, but it should give all interested a flavor of how libel happens on the net. To all here: watch what you say about specific people or companies, the net is a powerful medium for freedom of expression and exchange of ideas; but it can also be the rope by which one hangs oneself. No-one has an absolute right to say anything they wish about someone else (or a company) without being responsible for the effect of those statements.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- One of the fundamental tenets of defamation law . . . - patentguy 10:28:54 03/02/00 (7)
- Re: Patent....what is your take on slander "per se".... - alan m. kafton 12:55:24 03/02/00 (1)
- Re: Patent....what is your take on slander "per se".... - patentguy 13:52:03 03/02/00 (0)
- I would hope... - Muzikmike 12:14:16 03/02/00 (3)
- Re: I would hope... - Bruce from DC 14:52:44 03/02/00 (0)
- I dont think anyone wants to chill good discourse - patentguy 12:29:22 03/02/00 (1)
- Re: I dont think anyone wants to chill good discourse - Muzikmike 17:16:27 03/02/00 (0)
- Disclaimer, please read. - patentguy 12:09:55 03/02/00 (0)