|
Subject: Libel, Slander, "Criminal" and Misconduct Allegations,
Quotations, Internet "Publication," Regular Publication Information
Needed and Starting Discussion Thread Sought
My new book (currently a near final draft) makes as many as 100
criminal allegations against different people or parties. So my goal
of publishing it may have legal complications or result in lawsuits
against me.
Do libel or slander laws apply to my allegations against people or
quotations that I say they made in a draft copy of my book manuscript
if I deliberately make either the draft or final manuscript available
for download on a website, or if I deliberately post it to Usenet, or
if I deliberately make available for Napster-style file sharing? One
person told me that these laws do not apply! This person said they
only apply if the manuscript is published. So I am confused. Maybe
instead of publishing my book, I should simply "self-publish" on the
internet and then be free of legal consequences.
Can somebody summaries Internet Self-publication versus regular
publication legal issues?
I found ALL of the below information on the internet.
Please correct, comment, or reference better information or mistakes
in the below.
Libel and slander, Legal Terms And Concepts
libel and slander, in law, types of defamation. In common law, written
defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today,
however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of
defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called
libel, while the spoken or gestured forms are called slander.
The term libel is also often used if a wide audience for the
defamation is possible. Courts have split over which category radio
and television are in; today's statutes generally categorize
defamation occurring in those media as slander. The offenses are alike
in several respects. The defamation : essentially exposure to hatred,
contempt, ridicule, or pecuniary loss : must directly affect the
reputation of a living person. It must be published, i.e., revealed to
someone besides the subject of the attack. It is no defense that the
defendant merely repeated but did not originate the defamation.
The plaintiff is required to prove the colloquium (circumstances of
utterance showing that the statement was directed against him or her
specifically) and, when necessary, the innuendo (the factors making an
apparently innocent statement defamatory). Generally, truth is an
absolute defense in a suit for defamation. A false defamatory
statement may be privileged if the actor was a legislator, executive
officer, or speaking in a court proceeding. The requirement of
colloquium makes unactionable defamation of a large group, e.g., a
racial or professional group.
Whether the charge is libel or slander is important. Most libels are
deemed injurious and give immediate ground for suit. However, only
certain types of statements are slanderous per se and do not require
proof of pecuniary damages; these include imputation of crime, of
loathsome disease, or of professional or occupational incapacity. In
other cases, there may not be any recovery unless the pecuniary loss
caused by the injury is proved. The award to the successful plaintiff
in a suit for defamation will usually include punitive, as well as
compensatory, damages if the defendant willfully lied or published the
defamation repeatedly.
In New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court
provided a significant expansion of the protection of the press from
libel actions. Stemming from a case in which an elected official in
Montgomery, Ala., complained of defamation by civil-rights activists,
the court ruled that to protect the free flow of speech and opinions,
public officials could only collect damages for libel if falsehoods
were made with "reckless disregard" for the truth. This ruling has
since been extended to any celebrity before the public.
The Sullivan ruling shifted the burden of proof in many libel cases
from the defendant to the plaintiff, who must now prove the falsehood
was issued with actual malice, that is, with deliberate knowledge that
the statement was both incorrect and defamatory. The ruling was a
victory for the media, but left the plaintiff with the difficult task
of obtaining the sources for the allegedly libelous information :
sources that reporters often hold confidential. In most cases, the
court requires the plaintiff to show that a reasonable effort has been
made to obtain the information elsewhere before it requires the
reporter to divulge any sources.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed that only factual
misrepresentation is to be considered libel or slander, not expression
of opinion. It has also ruled that libel suits may be filed across
state lines, not only in the state where the plaintiff lives. Libel
suits apply not only to the media and public personalities but also to
businesses, which account for approximately 70% of all suits. In
recent years, producers of foods and other goods have succeeded in
urging more than a dozen states to pass laws allowing them to sue
critics of the safety or other aspects of their products; experts
predict such laws will be overturned, but they have in the meantime
had a "chilling" effect on public discussion in some cases.
Bibliography :
See N. L. Rosenberg, Protecting the Best Men: An Interpretive History
of the Law of Libel (1986); R. A. Smolla, Suing the Press (1986); A.
Lewis, Make No Law: The Sullivan Law and the First Amendment (1991).
|
| |
| |
On 23 Oct 2004 11:47:15 -0700, ethanlourdes@hotmail.com (Ethan
Lourdes) wrote:
Subject: Libel, Slander, "Criminal" and Misconduct Allegations,
Quotations, Internet "Publication," Regular Publication Information
Needed and Starting Discussion Thread Sought
My new book (currently a near final draft) makes as many as 100
criminal allegations against different people or parties. So my goal
of publishing it may have legal complications or result in lawsuits
against me.
Do libel or slander laws apply to my allegations against people or
quotations that I say they made in a draft copy of my book manuscript
if I deliberately make either the draft or final manuscript available
for download on a website, or if I deliberately post it to Usenet, or
if I deliberately make available for Napster-style file sharing? One
person told me that these laws do not apply! This person said they
only apply if the manuscript is published. So I am confused. Maybe
instead of publishing my book, I should simply "self-publish" on the
internet and then be free of legal consequences.
No, "publication" in libel means you have made it available for
somebody to read, by any means whatsoever. Usenet posting is
publication, though the credibility of any Usenet poster is so low
that there may be a longshot argument that no reasonable person would
have believed you.
Can somebody summaries Internet Self-publication versus regular
publication legal issues?
As an Internet self-publisher, you are unlikely to be accorded the
privileges enjoyed by legitimate journalists (particularly the
requirement that the plaintiff prove actual malice).
I found ALL of the below information on the internet.
Please correct, comment, or reference better information or mistakes
in the below.
It is accurate, even if it doesn't go into much detail. In particular,
it gives short shrift to a subject that should concern you greatly,
which is libel per se (also called libel on its face). Certain
allegations, such as that a person has committed a crime of moral
turpitude or is infected with a loathsome disease, are so base that
they are deemed injurious even if the victim cannot prove damages.
So if you are considering publishing a manuscript (and self-publishing
of any kind is publishing) in which you make some hundred accusations
of crimes, you should be aware that at least some of those people may
have viable cases for libel per se against you.
You should also concern yourself with invasion of privacy. Many
details of the lives of private persons and even some public figures
are not open to public prying, even if they are true as you relate
them.
Any of the hundred or so people you plan to accuse could ruin your
life for you with a well-prosecuted libel suit. DO NOT do anything
like what you contemplate until you have secured definitive legal
advice, which means contacting a lawyer who specialized in libel and
invasion-of-privacy cases and paying him for his opinion.
[snip]
--
I'm not a lawyer, DEFINITELY see a lawyer before doing anything
remotely like what you contemplate,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
very nice email came from somebody who added the folling wonderful comentary.
What is his background?
On 23 Oct 2004in misc.legal you said/asked in substance:
My book now in draft form makes numerous allegations
of criminal conduct by different persons.
Do libel . . . laws apply to my allegations . . .
if I post them to a Usenet newsgroup or
make the manuscript available for download
from a website?
Yes
Is it correct as someone told me that defamation
law does not apply to publication via the internet?
No.
Would the responses above be any different if
the publication was made via Napster-style file
sharing?
No.
Is it correct as someone told me recovery for
libel or slander depends among other things on
proof that the defendant published the words
complained of?
Yes (by definition).
The (stupid and also obviously ill-informed) infirmity with the
statement you ascribe to your interlocutor -- especially his or her at
once facially absurd because self-contradictory and anyway palpably
law-incorrect statement that "that instead of publishing [your] book,
[you] should 'self-publish' on the internet" and thereby be "instead
of publishing my book, I should simply "self-publish" on the
internet as if you thereby would be "free of legal consequences" -- is
that neither you nor s/he appear to understand that "publish" for
defamation law purposes means no more than to communicate (by any
means) to a third-person.
Can somebody summaries Internet Self-publication
versus regular publication legal issues?
For the purposes about which you ask -- "publication" as a core
element of defamation -- there is not any difference between
publishing on/via the internet and publishing by other means (e.g.,
writing then sending a letter, printing and distributing a leaflet or
pamphlet, speaking loudly to passers-by on a street corner,
broadcasting over the radio, being interviewed by a TV reporter,
etc.).
( Conversely/correlatively, since [as you note in part] "publication"
for defamation law purposes requires intentionality of communication
to a third-person, sending an email addressed to onesself via a
network on which the sender has good reason to believe that such data
will remain essentially private [i.e. is not intended to and very
probably will not be read by another] or, e.g., uploading to a network
a word-processing file or graphics file for editing only by onesself
also in an essentially private manner, etc., would not be deemed
"publication" since, again, "publication" for these purposes by
definition entails a communication deliberately made to a third person
[or, perhaps, a statement one knows or in the circumstances ought know
very likely would be heard by one or more third persons, such as,
f'r'instance, yelling very loudly through an open window near a street
with passers-by]. )
Please correct, comment, or reference better
information or mistakes in the below information
I found on the internet:
written defamation is generally referred to as
"libel" and orally communicated defamation is
generally referred to as "slander".
Correct.
Today, however, there are no such clear definitions.
Incorrrect.
Permanent forms . . .
. . . not "permanent forms" but, rather, not just orally-communicated
forms . . .
. . . of defamation, such as the written or pictorial,
are usually called "libel" while the spoken or gestured
forms are called "slander"
Correct.
The term libel is also often used if a wide
audience for the defamation is possible.
Not correct if the publication at issue has been communicated only
orally including if without it having been saved on some form of media
from which it may readily be reproduced (e.g., film with a soundtrack,
audio or video tape, a hand- or machine-made stenographic record or
record from which a stenographic copy can be made).
Courts have split over which category radio
and television are in; . . .
. . . except that, depending on context (which you don't supply),
this is a potentially very misleading distinction anyway not likely to
be of consequence for you . . .
. . . and today's statutes . . .
. . . and "common law" (i.e., judge-made rulings) . . .
. . . generally categorize defamation occurring
in those media as slander . . . .
. . . except that the "generally" is not correct.
The offenses are alike in several respects.
The defamation : essentially exposure to hatred,
contempt, ridicule, or pecuniary loss . . .
. . . except that, in some jursidictions, liability for what commonly
is referred to as "defamation per se" (i.e., words that are "per se"
libelous or slanderous) may be imposed without the need to prove
pecuniary loss . . .
. . . must directly affect the reputation of a living
person.
Correct but just as a matter of definition -- i.e., that even
deliberately false/untrue statements of asserted fact said about a
human are not "defamatory" unless the target of the words is alive
(although note, too, that, in some jurisidictions, one also may be
liable for defamation of a fictive "person" such as corporatoin or
other business organization and that there may be other theories
pursuant to which what would have been "defamation" published about a
now deceased person may be recoverable despite the target's death).
It must be published, i.e., revealed to someone
besides the subject of the attack . . .
. . . not "revealed" but, rather, "communicated" . . .
. . . and it is no defense that the defendant merely
repeated but did not originate the defamation . . .
. . . sort of correct, depending on the plaintiff's status or not as
a "public figure" in whole or in part and on who the defendant is and
the purpose of the defendant's publication (e.g., whether a print or
electronic journalist who has made a reasonably dilligent even if, it
later turns out, factually mistaken investigation of the undelrying
facts).
The plaintiff is required to prove that the statement
was directed against . . .
. . . or, as the case may be, deliberately stated about (i.e.,
published but not necessarily in a manner intended to harm as
"directed against" appears to connote) . . .
. . . the defendant . . .
. . . correct . . .
. . . and, when necessary, the innuendo (the
factors making an apparently innocent statement
defamatory).
This last phrase is basically gibberish -- an apparent but incoherent
attempt to summarize as if one numerous different principles
whether/how/when "innuendo" may be defamatory but without in any way
actually explaining when/how "innuendo" (or what is said to be
"implied" or what someone might claim to be "inferrable") applies in
defamation-law contexts.
Generally, truth is an absolute defense in a suit
for defamation.
Correct (although pay attention, too, the implication that "generally"
does not mean "always" as, e.g., in [so-called] "false light" cases -
i.e., statements which might be said to be "literally true" bu which,
when read in context, are tantamount to communication statements about
the plaintiff that are false in fact and are otherwise defamatory).
It is also generally correct to say that:
A false defamatory statement may be privileged
. . .
. . . in
|
| |
| |
How much protection does my book have if the various libelous or
slanderously interpretable charges are directed at public or famous
figures (please define legally) or public institutions or public
policies being implemented by these figures?
What if I change my whole book in whole or in part to say that it has
no facts at all and that it is just my entire opinion, then can I be
sued even though many people will "assume" it is fact or believe that
is what I really meant or something like that?
What if I say person P said horrible monsterous revealing Quote Q to
me in conversation but there is no independent record about that. And
I am sued by Person P saying that that Quote never happened? Who will
win in court? What method is used to decide?
Is there a statue of limitations for libel, slander, defamation? How
long is it generally?
Is defamation the same as libel or slander or a third thing?
|
| |
| |
On 23 Oct 2004 11:47:15 -0700, ethanlourdes@hotmail.com (Ethan
Lourdes) wrote:
Subject: Libel, Slander, "Criminal" and Misconduct Allegations,
Quotations, Internet "Publication," Regular Publication Information
Needed and Starting Discussion Thread Sought
My new book (currently a near final draft) makes as many as 100
criminal allegations against different people or parties. So my goal
of publishing it may have legal complications or result in lawsuits
against me.
This is a question for a real lawyer experienced in this area. A
publisher will make you sign an indemnity agreement making you
personally responsible for any judgments resulting from the book, plus
legal costs.
Even if your legal grounds are solid, you may still be pestered by
lawsuits or threats of lawsuits. This can get expensive.
Bill Penrose
|
| |
| |
Ethan Lourdes wrote:
Subject: Libel, Slander, "Criminal" and Misconduct Allegations,
Quotations, Internet "Publication," Regular Publication Information
Needed and Starting Discussion Thread Sought
My new book (currently a near final draft) makes as many as 100
criminal allegations against different people or parties. So my goal
of publishing it may have legal complications or result in lawsuits
against me.
Do libel or slander laws apply to my allegations against people or
quotations that I say they made in a draft copy of my book manuscript
if I deliberately make either the draft or final manuscript available
for download on a website, or if I deliberately post it to Usenet, or
if I deliberately make available for Napster-style file sharing? One
person told me that these laws do not apply! This person said they
only apply if the manuscript is published. So I am confused. Maybe
instead of publishing my book, I should simply "self-publish" on the
internet and then be free of legal consequences.
Can somebody summaries Internet Self-publication versus regular
publication legal issues?
I found ALL of the below information on the internet.
Please correct, comment, or reference better information or mistakes
in the below.
Libel and slander, Legal Terms And Concepts
libel and slander, in law, types of defamation. In common law, written
defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today,
however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of
defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called
libel, while the spoken or gestured forms are called slander.
The term libel is also often used if a wide audience for the
defamation is possible. Courts have split over which category radio
and television are in; today's statutes generally categorize
defamation occurring in those media as slander. The offenses are alike
in several respects. The defamation : essentially exposure to hatred,
contempt, ridicule, or pecuniary loss : must directly affect the
reputation of a living person. It must be published, i.e., revealed to
someone besides the subject of the attack. It is no defense that the
defendant merely repeated but did not originate the defamation.
The plaintiff is required to prove the colloquium (circumstances of
utterance showing that the statement was directed against him or her
specifically) and, when necessary, the innuendo (the factors making an
apparently innocent statement defamatory). Generally, truth is an
absolute defense in a suit for defamation. A false defamatory
statement may be privileged if the actor was a legislator, executive
officer, or speaking in a court proceeding. The requirement of
colloquium makes unactionable defamation of a large group, e.g., a
racial or professional group.
Whether the charge is libel or slander is important. Most libels are
deemed injurious and give immediate ground for suit. However, only
certain types of statements are slanderous per se and do not require
proof of pecuniary damages; these include imputation of crime, of
loathsome disease, or of professional or occupational incapacity. In
other cases, there may not be any recovery unless the pecuniary loss
caused by the injury is proved. The award to the successful plaintiff
in a suit for defamation will usually include punitive, as well as
compensatory, damages if the defendant willfully lied or published the
defamation repeatedly.
In New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court
provided a significant expansion of the protection of the press from
libel actions. Stemming from a case in which an elected official in
Montgomery, Ala., complained of defamation by civil-rights activists,
the court ruled that to protect the free flow of speech and opinions,
public officials could only collect damages for libel if falsehoods
were made with "reckless disregard" for the truth. This ruling has
since been extended to any celebrity before the public.
The Sullivan ruling shifted the burden of proof in many libel cases
from the defendant to the plaintiff, who must now prove the falsehood
was issued with actual malice, that is, with deliberate knowledge that
the statement was both incorrect and defamatory. The ruling was a
victory for the media, but left the plaintiff with the difficult task
of obtaining the sources for the allegedly libelous information :
sources that reporters often hold confidential. In most cases, the
court requires the plaintiff to show that a reasonable effort has been
made to obtain the information elsewhere before it requires the
reporter to divulge any sources.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed that only factual
misrepresentation is to be considered libel or slander, not expression
of opinion. It has also ruled that libel suits may be filed across
state lines, not only in the state where the plaintiff lives. Libel
suits apply not only to the media and public personalities but also to
businesses, which account for approximately 70% of all suits. In
recent years, producers of foods and other goods have succeeded in
urging more than a dozen states to pass laws allowing them to sue
critics of the safety or other aspects of their products; experts
predict such laws will be overturned, but they have in the meantime
had a "chilling" effect on public discussion in some cases.
Purely my personal opinion.
Libel is libel no matter how it is represented.
It makes no difference if the material is published and copyrighted or not.
The fact is, you made a statement about someone which you know is false.
If it is to be an opinion, then clearly state that is an opinion.
"It is my opinion that....."
"John Smith was seen dancing naked in public."
You best have proof of that.
If you can't back up your words, then libel/slander could be your demise
quite easily.
Be extremely careful of how you word your statements about any one.
Even if they are public figures.
I for one am sick and tired of people today thinking they can get away with
putting stuff on a website and claiming they are immune from prosecution
because of "Freedom of speech".
Even articles posted in usenet can and have been the subject of court cases.
Be very careful of what you say about someone.
|
| |
| |
|
