|
In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of publishing (meaning to a third party) a false statement that negatively affects someone's reputation. "Defamation" is the term generally used internationally, and is accordingly used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "libel" and "slander". Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. ...
At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally (or in Australia negligently) and voluntarily touching another person without lawful excuse or justification. ...
False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges he or she was held in custody without reasonable cause or an order issued by a court of appropriate jurisdiction. ...
False Imprisonment is a common law tort, and possibly a misdemeanor crime, wherein a person is intentionally confined without legal authority. ...
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a common law tort claim for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress. ...
Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally (or in Australia negligently) interfered with another persons lawful possession of a chattel. ...
Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual intentionally (or in Australia negligently) enters the land of another without lawful excuse. ...
In law, conversion is a tort that deals with the wrongful interference with goods. ...
In tort law, detinue is an action for the wrongful detention of goods from an individual who has a greater right to immediate possession than the current possessor. ...
Replevin is an Anglo-French law term (derived from repletir, to replevy). ...
Trover signifies finding. ...
Invasion of privacy is a legal term essentially defined as a violation of the right to be left alone. ...
Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiffs contractual or other business relationships. ...
In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i. ...
Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. ...
Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. ...
Consent (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible justification against civil or criminal liability. ...
In tort law, the defense of necessity is divided between private necessity (where a person commits a tort for the defense of his own property) and public necessity (where a person commits a tort for the public good, such as cutting down someone elses trees to stop the spread...
This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ...
A contract is a promise or an agreement that is enforced or recognized by the law. ...
Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ...
In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ...
The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of common law that punishes criminals for committing offences against the state. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ...
Royal motto (French): Dieu et mon droit (Translated: God and my right) Englands location (dark green) within the British Isles Languages None official English de facto Capital None official London de facto Largest city London Area – Total Ranked 1st UK 130,395 km² Population – Total (mid-2004) – Total (2001...
Law (from the late Old English lagu of probable North Germanic origin) in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, intended to provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. ...
Delict is a French word and a legal term in civil law which signifies a wilfull wrong, similar to the common law concept of tort though differing in many substantive ways. ...
Vocabulary and general concepts
Origin of the word libel from Latin libellus "little book"
Libel and Slander terminology "Libel", "slander", and "defamation" are commonly used as synonyms in ordinary language in Britain and Ireland. In some jurisdictions, like the United States, defamatory communication in writing is termed "libel" while one made via the spoken word is termed "slander". However, because the underlying distinction is between permanent and transient communications, some jurisdictions regard all defamatory communications (even spoken statements) broadcast on radio or television as "libel". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under some legal systems.
According to the American and English Encyclopedia of Law, a libel is a malicious defamation expressed either by writing or printing or by signs, pictures, effigies or the like; tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation, or to publish the natural or alleged defects of one who is alive, thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy; or to cause him to be avoided or shunned or to injure him in his office, business or occupation.
Excuses Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.
Truth In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.
In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander). ...
See also Doctrine of substantial truth. The doctrine of substantial truth is a legal doctrine affecting libel and slander laws in the United States. ...
Privilege and Malice Almost all legal systems, including those of the United States, Scotland, and England and Wales, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made the statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was false. This is known as "qualified privilege"; a typical example is a complaint of professional misconduct. "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it was made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given by a witness on oath (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution) or statements made in a session of the legislature. Motto: Nemo me impune lacessit (English: No one provokes me with impunity) Scotlands location within Europe Scotlands location within the United Kingdom Languages English, Gaelic, Scots Capital Edinburgh Largest city Glasgow First Minister Jack McConnell Area - Total - % water Ranked 2nd UK 78,782 km² 1. ...
Royal motto (French): Dieu et mon droit (Translated: God and my right) Englands location (dark green) within the British Isles Languages None official English de facto Capital None official London de facto Largest city London Area – Total Ranked 1st UK 130,395 km² Population – Total (mid-2004) – Total (2001...
For an explanation of often confusing terms such as Great Britain, Britain, United Kingdom and England, see British Isles (terminology). ...
Parliamentary privilege, also known as absolute privilege, is a legal mechanism employed within the legislative bodies of countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system. ...
Similar but different delicts and torts Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury" or "convicium" involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, designed to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement.
Criminal libel Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. Thus, for example, in Zimbabwe "insulting the President" is by statute (Public Order and Security Act 2001) a criminal offence. In European systems, criminal liability for defamation is virtually obsolete by reason of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. An important example is Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407. Lingens was fined for publishing in a Vienna magazine comments about the behaviour of the Austrian Chancellor, such as 'basest opportunism', 'immoral' and 'undignified'. Under the Austrian criminal code the only defence was proof of the truth of these statements. Lingens could not prove the truth of these value judgments. The European Court of Human Rights stated that a careful distinction needed to be made between facts and value judgments/opinions. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The facts on which Lingens founded his value judgments were not disputed; nor was his good faith. Since it was impossible to prove the truth of value judgments, the requirement of the relevant provisions of the Austrian criminal code was impossible of fulfilment and infringed article 10 of the Convention. This article deals only with civil claims for defamation, in which the person defamed, rather than the state, is the person complaining and seeking a remedy.
Origins of defamation law In most early systems of law verbal defamations were treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offence, its essence lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the Twelve Tables, the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offences of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved abuse or insult. The Law of the Twelve Tables (Lex Duodecim Tabularum, more informally simply Duodecim Tabulae) was the ancient legislation that stood at the foundation of Roman law. ...
In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt with in the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offence lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offence lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defence, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria. Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome. ...
The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.
English law
Development of English defamation law Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The English noun Commonwealth dates originally from the fifteenth century. ...
The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). There was no distinction drawn between words written and spoken. When no pecuniary penalty was involved such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which were only finally abolished in the eighth century. It seems, to say the least, uncertain whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use. Edward I (June 17, 1239–July 7, 1307), popularly known as Longshanks because of his 6 foot 2 inch (1. ...
An ecclesiastical court (also called Court Christian) is any of certain courts having jurisdiction mainly in spiritual or religious matters. ...
The crime of scandalum magnatum, spreading false reports about the magnates of the realm, was established by statutes, but the first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law is one tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I. In that case no English authorities are cited except a previous case of the same nature before the same tribunal; the law and terminology appear to be taken directly from Roman sources, with the insertion that libels tended to a breach of the peace; and it seems probable that not very scrupulous tribunal had simply found it convenient to adopt the very stringent Roman provisions regarding the libelli famosi without paying any regard to the Roman limitations. From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation. The Star Chamber was an English court of law at the royal Palace of Westminster that began sessions in 1487 and ended them in 1641 when the court itself was abolished. ...
James VI of Scotland/James I of England and Ireland (Charles James) (June 19, 1566 – March 27, 1625) was King of England, King of Scotland, and King of Ireland and was the first to style himself King of Great Britain. ...
English Admiralty law In admiralty law, a libel was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit. The plaintiff was referred to as the "libellant". The verb "to libel" means "to sue [in admiralty]". Similar terminology was used in the United States legal system. The term has been rendered obsolete by the merger of the admiralty courts with tribunals of general jurisdiction and the adoption of simplified rules of civil procedure that specify "one form of action" for all claims. Admiralty law (usually referred to as simply admiralty and also referred to as maritime law or Law of the Sea) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. ...
A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in which the party commencing the action, the plaintiff, seeks a legal remedy. ...
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a civil action). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, what kind of service of process is required, the types of pleadings or...
Modern law English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
A statement can include an implication. A large photograph of Tony Blair above a headline saying "Corrupt Politicians" might be held to be an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt.
The allowable defences against libel are:
- Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages.
- Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.
- Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defence of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published. The leading modern English case on qualified privilege in the context of newspaper articles which are claimed to defame a public figure is now Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45.
An offer of amends - typically a combination of correction, apology and/or financial compensation - is a barrier to litigation in the courts.
Burden of Proof on the Plaintiff In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to people being tried. They are presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal law), or the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities (in civil law). However, at first glance, this burden of proof, in defamation laws - in some countries' legal systems, e.g. in the UK and Australia - seems to be reversed. In other countries, e.g. the USA, the burden of proof is on the accuser, consistent with other laws.
In systems where the burden of proof is said to be reversed, once the plaintiff meets the burden of proof that the publisher made the allegedly defamatory statement, the untruth of that statement is then presumed — the innocence of the person allegedly defamed is presumed, rather than the innocence of the person allegedly defaming.
So the burden of proof falls onto the defendant in the case, which can be called a reversal of the burden of proof.
The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called "McLibel case") held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position. [1] European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg The European Court of Human Rights, often referred to informally as the Strasbourg Court, was created to systematise the hearing of human rights complaints from Council of Europe member states. ...
The McLibel case is the nickname for an English court action filed by McDonalds Corporation against unemployed environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris. ...
In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case. Since then, certain aspects of the trial has been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights. McDonalds Sekime national route store (Osaka, Japan) McDonalds Corporation (NYSE: MCD) is the worlds largest chain of fast-food restaurants. ...
Helen Steel and David Morris, the defendants in the McLibel case, at the launch of McSpotlight. ...
Human rights are rights which some hold to be inalienable and belonging to all humans. ...
United States law Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as The Commonwealth, is an association of 53 independent sovereign states, almost all of which are former territories of the British Empire. ...
This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication. The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. ...
Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated. ...
Dissent is the sentiment of non-agreement with the majority, or the leader, of a group to which the dissenter is supposed to belong or to obey. ...
The American Revolution was a revolution that ended two centuries of rule of the Thirteen Colonies by the British Empire and created the modern United States of America. ...
In the United States, about 75 percent of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25 percent in federal courts. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.
Most defendants in libel lawsuits are newspapers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defandants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.
In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest.
Defenses Defenses to claims of defamation include: - Truth is an absolute defense for any claims of defamation.
- Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
- Opinion is a defense is recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the person makes a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and allow any statements suggesting a factual basis to support a defamation claim.
- Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could "honestly entertain" such an opinion, the statement is protected.
- Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
- Innocent dissemination is defense in some cases. Defendants are not liable for innocently disseminating defamatory statements–in situations where the defendant had no actual knowledge of defamation and/or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory (and if negligence did not cause the defendants' lack of knowledge). The United States Postal Service, for example, cannot be liable for delivering a defamatory letter (although they would likely claim sovereign immunity anyway).
- Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimants' position in the community is so poor that even if the statement was defamatory there can be not actual damage to the plaintiff, failing the fourth requirement for a justified libel claim. These claimants' are "libel-proof."
If a defamation lawsuit actually gets to trial, truth is a "defense." Another is if the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Another defense that is presented by accused media companies is "fault"—a series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a plaintiff to win a libel case, "actual malice" or "reckless negligence" must be proved on the part of the defendant if the statement in question is about a public official or public figure. In the case of a private figure, the plaintiff must merely prove negligence. Common dictionary definitions of truth include some form of accord with reality. ...
In most litigation under the common law adversarial system the defendant, perhaps with the assistance of counsel, may allege or present defenses (or defences) in order to avoid liability, civil or criminal. ...
A privilege—etymologically private law or law relating to a specific individual—is an honour, or permissive activity granted by another person or a government. ...
This article is about witnesses in law courts. ...
In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. ...
A court is an official, public forum which a sovereign establishes by lawful authority to adjudicate disputes, and to dispense civil, labour, administrative and criminal justice under the law. ...
A legislature is a governmental deliberative assembly with the power to adopt laws. ...
Look up Opinion in Wiktionary, the free dictionary An opinion is a persons ideas and thoughts towards something. ...
In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency, and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical counterexamples. ...
Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation cases (libel or slander). ...
(This article discusses the soundess notion of informal logic. ...
The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction that originated in the development of the common law. ...
Consent (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible justification against civil or criminal liability. ...
The plaintiff, claimant, or complainant is the party initiating a lawsuit, (also known as an action). ...
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ...
In law, negligence is a type of tort or delict that can be either criminal or civil in nature. ...
A USPS logo A USPS truck in San Francisco A smaller truck (a Long Life Vehicle or LLV) used in suburban areas The United States Postal Service (USPS) is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the United States government (see 39 USC § 201) responsible for providing postal service...
Sovereign immunity or crown immunity is a type of immunity that, in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. ...
Prima facie (PRY-muh-FAY-shee; -shuh) is a Latin expression meaning at first sight, used in common law jurisdictions to denote evidence that is sufficient, if not rebutted, to prove a particular proposition of fact. ...
Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. ...
// Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters. ...
For the Nintendo 64 emulator, see 1964 (Emulator). ...
Actual malice in US law is defined as knowledge that the information was false or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. ...
An official is, in the primary sense, someone who holds an office in an organisation, of any kind. ...
Under United States law libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. "Media liability insurance" is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. Associated Press logo The Associated Press, or AP, is an American news agency, the worlds largest such organization. ...
Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of potential financial loss. ...
Defamation per se All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, and Tennessee recognize some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, traditionally: Official language(s) None Capital Phoenix Largest city Phoenix Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 6th 113,998 sq mi 295,254 km² 310 miles 500 km 400 miles 645 km 0. ...
Official language(s) English Capital Little Rock Largest city Little Rock Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 29th 53,179 sq mi 137 732 km² 239 miles 385 km 261 miles 420 km 2. ...
Official language(s) English Capital Jackson Largest city Jackson Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 32nd 125,443 km² 275 km 545 km 3 30°13N to 35°N 88°7W to 91°41W Population - Total (2000) - Density Ranked 31st 2,697,243 23. ...
Official language(s) none, English most common Capital Jefferson City Largest city Kansas City Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 21st 69,709 mi²; 180,693 km² 240 mi; 385 km 300 mi; 480 km 1. ...
Official language(s) None Capital Salem Largest city Portland Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 9th 255,026 km² 420 km 580 km 2. ...
Official language(s) English Capital Nashville Largest city Memphis Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 36th 109,247 km² 195 km 710 km 2. ...
In states that recognize defamation per se, people making a defamation claim for certain statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory:
- Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
- Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually-transmitted disease)
- Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
- Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [2]
For the malady found in the Hebrew Bible, see the article Tzaraath. ...
Sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), also known as sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), are diseases that are commonly transmitted between partners through some form of sexual activity, most commonly vaginal intercourse, oral sex, or anal sex. ...
This page is a candidate to be copied to Wiktionary using the Transwiki process. ...
History Laws regulating slander and libel in the United States began to develop even before the American Revolution. In one of the most famous cases, New York publisher John Peter Zenger was imprisoned for 8 months in 1734 for printing attacks on the governor of the colony. Zenger won his case and was acquitted by jury in 1735 under the counsel of Andrew Hamilton. The case established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee. This impacted the later formers of the U.S. constitution, including Gouverneur Morris, who said The American Revolution was a revolution that ended two centuries of rule of the Thirteen Colonies by the British Empire and created the modern United States of America. ...
Official language(s) None, English de facto Capital Albany Largest city New York City Area - Total - Width - Length - % water - Latitude - Longitude Ranked 27th 141,205 km² 455 km 530 km 13. ...
John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 - July 28, 1746) was a printer, publisher, editor and journalist whose indictment, trial and acquittal on sedition and libel charges (against the then Governor William Cosby of the New York Colony) in 1734 was an important contributing factor to the development of the freedom...
Events January 8 - Premiere of George Frideric Handels opera Ariodante at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. ...
Events April 16 - The London premiere of Alcina by George Frideric Handel, his first the first Italian opera for the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden. ...
This page is about a famous lawyer; see Andrew Hamilton (disambiguation) for other meanings. ...
Gouverneur Morris Gouverneur Morris (January 31, 1752 – November 8, 1816) was an American statesman who represented Pennsylvania in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was author of large sections of the Constitution of the United States. ...
- The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America.
Zenger's case also established that libel cases, though they were civil rather than criminal cases, could be heard by a jury, which would have the authority to rule on the allegations and to set the amount of monetary damages awarded. [citation needed]
Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed specifically to protect freedom of the press, the Supreme Court long neglected to use it to rule on libel cases, leaving libel laws mixed across the states. In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could only win a suit for libel if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals. Page I of the Constitution of the United States of America Page II of the United States Constitution Page III of the United States Constitution Page IV of the United States Constitution The Syng inkstand, with which the Constitution was signed The Constitution of the United States is the supreme...
The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States...
For the Nintendo 64 emulator, see 1964 (Emulator). ...
Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. ...
Actual malice in US law is defined as knowledge that the information was false or that it was published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. ...
Information as a concept bears a diversity of meanings, from everyday usage to technical settings. ...
In 1974, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (418 U.S. 323), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff could not win a libel suit when the statement(s) in question were of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". For example, contrast "I think Jo is a bad lawyer", which is opinion, with "Jo doesn't know the law", which is defamatory per se. In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This holding differs significantly from most other common law jurisdictions, which still have strict liability for defamation. 1974 (MCMLXXIV) was a common year starting on Tuesday (the link is to a full 1974 calendar). ...
Holding The First Amendment permits states to formulate their own standards of libel for defamatory statements made about private figures, as long as liability is not imposed without fault. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
Culpability (Blameworthiness) is the state of deserving to be blamed for a crime or offence. ...
Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ...
In 1988, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, (485 U.S. 46), the Supreme Court ruled that a parody advertisement claiming Jerry Falwell had engaged in an incestuous act with his mother in an outhouse, while false, could not allow Falwell to win damages for emotional distress because the statement was so obviously ridiculous that it was clearly not true; an allegation believed by nobody, it was ruled, brought no liability upon the author. The court thus overturned a lower court's upholding of an award where the jury had decided against the claim of libel but had awarded damages for emotional distress. 1988 (MCMLXXXVIII) was a leap year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
Holding The creators of parodies of public figures are protected by the First Amendment against civil liability, unless the parody includes false statements of fact made in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth. ...
A parody advertisement is a fictional advertisement for a non-existent product, either done within another advertisement for an actual product, or done simply as parody of advertisements --used either: as a way of ridiculing or drawing negative attention towards a real advertisement or such advertisements subject; or as...
Jerry Lamon Falwell (born on August 11, 1933, Lynchburg, Virginia) is a Fundamentalist Baptist pastor, televangelist, and conservative activist from the United States. ...
Incest is sexual activity between close family members. ...
Australian law Australian law tends to follow English law on defamation issues, although there are differences introduced by statute, and by an implied constitutional limitation on governmental powers to limit speech of a political nature.
A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment, which established that Internet-published foreign publications which defamed an Australian in his Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law, has gained worldwide attention and is often (although inaccurately, see for example Berezovsky v Forbes in England) said to be the first of its kind; the case was subsequently settled. High Court entrance The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. ...
December 10 is the 344th day (345th in leap years) of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ...
For the Cusco album, see 2002 (album). ...
On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v. ...
Among the various common law jurisdictions, some Americans have presented a visceral and vocal reaction to the Gutnick decision. It has been suggested that both the broad assertion of personal jurisdiction by Australia (which has a similar personal jurisdiction rule to most jurisdictions) and the underlying imposition of strict liability for defamation run counter to notions of fairness and due process that Americans consider to be fundamental aspects of their system of justice. On the other hand, the decision, which mirrors similar decisions in many other jurisdictions such as England, Scotland, France, and Italy, has been defended on the basis that those who choose to publish worldwide cannot complain if they are sued worldwide; and the existence of pro-defender defamation laws in America does not give Americans a licence to be free of the laws of other countries. Personal jurisdiction, jurisdiction of (or over) the person, or jurisdiction in personam is the power of a court to require a party (usually the defendant) or a witness to come before the court. ...
Justice is a concept involving the fair and moral treatment of all persons, especially in law. ...
To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...
Canadian law As with most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada also follows English law on defamation issues (although the law in the province of Quebec has different roots). A recent Supreme Court of Canada case, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995), has reviewed the relationship of the common law of defamation and its relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also the largest libel award (CAD 1,600,000 against the church) upheld in Canada and part of the ongoing legal problems of Scientology. This reasoning in this case specifically rejects the actual malice test in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan citing criticism of it, not only in the United States, but in other countries as well. The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as The Commonwealth, is an association of 53 independent sovereign states, almost all of which are former territories of the British Empire. ...
Motto: Je me souviens (French: I remember) Official languages French Capital Quebec City Largest city Montreal Lieutenant-Governor Lise Thibault Premier Jean Charest (PLQ) Parliamentary representation - House seat - Senate seats 75 24 Area Total • Land • Water (% of total) Ranked 2nd 1,542,056 km² 1,183,128 km² 176,928...
The Supreme Court Building in Ottawa The Supreme Court of Canada (French: Cour suprême du Canada) is highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal for all litigants in the Canadian justice system. ...
Holding Charter does not protect individuals from tort of defamation. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
The Charter, signed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1981. ...
Canadian One Dollar Coin (Loonie) The dollar (currency code CAD) has been the currency of Canada since 1858. ...
The Church of Scientology is well known for its extensive use of the legal system. ...
Defamation as a tort does not infringe the freedom of expression guarantee under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Coates v. The Citizen (1988), 44 C.C.L.T. 286 (N.S.S.C.). Defamatory libel as a criminal offence under the Criminal Code is equally valid, according to the Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439. The Charter, signed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1981. ...
The Supreme Court Building in Ottawa The Supreme Court of Canada (French: Cour suprême du Canada) is highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal for all litigants in the Canadian justice system. ...
See also A chilling effect is a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group. ...
The International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX), founded in 1992, is a global network of 72 non-governmental organisations that promotes and defends the right to freedom of expression. ...
Leshon ha-Ra, or Loshon Hora, (the evil tongue in Hebrew) denotes gossip, slander, and defamation. ...
Prior restraint is a legal term referring to a governments actions that prevent materials from being published. ...
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, (SLAPP) refers to litigation filed by a large corporation (or in some cases, a wealthy individual) to silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. ...
Detraction is defined, primarily in Roman Catholic theology, as the act of revealing previously unknown faults or sins of another person to a third person. ...
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view. ...
The doctrine of substantial truth is a legal doctrine affecting libel and slander laws in the United States. ...
Media Transparency is the concept of determining how and why information is conveyed through various means. ...
External links |
Feeds |
Contact