Chapter 4 Libel

Front 1

reputation

Back 1

What others think of a person or entity.

Front 2

defamation

Back 2

Injury to reputation.

Front 3

libel

Back 3

Printed or, in some states, broadcast defamation.

Front 4

slander

Back 4

Spoken defamation. However, in most states, defamation spoken on broadcast stations or in motion pictures is considered libel.

Front 5

Restatement of (Second) Torts

Back 5

A publication of the American Law Institute that attempts to provide a comprehensive statement of the law of torts.

Front 6

burden of proof

Back 6

The responsibility imposed on one side in a legal conflict to prove its version of the facts.

Front 7

trade libel (product disparagement)

Back 7

Intentionally defaming product quality causing the product manufacturer to lose money.

Front 8

common-law malice

Back 8

Hated, ill will, spite.

Front 9

actual malice (common law)

Back 9

In libel, publication with improper motive such as hatred, spite, vengeance, or ill will. Proof of common-law actual malice has traditionally defeated common law defenses such as the reporter's privilege to report official proceedings and fair comment and opinion. Proof of common-law actual malice also is often required by persons suing for trade libel and or libel per quod.

Front 10

innocent construction rule

Back 10

A rule stating that material must be defined as innocent rather than defamatory if an innocent construction is possible.

Front 11

innuendo

Back 11

Implied defamation.

Front 12

common carriers

Back 12

In communications, a regulated monopoly guaranteed profits by the government, that is expected to provide message delivery service to anyone for a fee, without interfering in the content of the message.

Front 13

fault

Back 13

Frequently used to mean the media error that the plaintiff must prove to win a libel suit. Plaintiffs who are judged to be public officials or public figures must prove New York Times actual malice. Individual states can determine the level of fault that must be proven by other plaintiffs, but most states have chosen negligence.

Front 14

negligence

Back 14

Not acting as a reasonable person would. In some states, a journalist not acting as a reasonable journalist would.

Front 15

seditious libel

Back 15

Defaming the government.

Front 16

public figures

Back 16

The U.S Supreme Court has said that people become public figures for the purpose of libel suits if they (1) possess widespread fame or notoriety (2) have injected themselves into the debate of a controversial public issue for the purpose of affecting the outcome of that controversy.

Front 17

New York Times Actual Malice

Back 17

In libel, publication with the knowledge of the falsity of a story or with reckless disregard for the truth. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that both public officials and public figures must prove New York Times actual malice in order to win libel suits.

Front 18

private figures

Back 18

A libel plaintiff who is not a public figure or public official. In most states, a private figure libel plaintiff need prove only that the defendant acted negligently.

Front 19

actual damages

Back 19

Money awarded in a libel suit to a plaintiff who can demonstrate evidence of harm to reputation. Actual damages can include evidence of emotional distress as well as proof of monetary damages.

Front 20

special damages

Back 20

Money damages compensating for the loss of reputation that are awarded only on proof of out-of-pocket monetary loss.

Front 21

punitive damages

Back 21

Money damages awarded to punish a defendant rather than to compensate a plaintiff for loss of money or reputation.

Front 22

summary judgement

Back 22

A ruling by a judge that there is no dispute of material fact between the two parties in a case, and that one party should win the case as a matter of law. A summary judgement precludes the need for a trial.

Front 23

statute of limitations

Back 23

Time limits established by statute during which lawsuits may be filed or criminal charges brought.

Front 24

opinion

Back 24

A court's written statement explaining the decision, or a judge's written statement explaining agreement or disagreement with a court's decision.

Front 25

absolute privileges

Back 25

A libel defense protecting false and defamatory statements made by certain individuals, such as government officials acting in their official capacities, or in certain documents, such as those filed with courts.

Front 26

qualified privileges

Back 26

A journalist's libel defense based on the another's absolute privilege. A qualified privilege may be lost if the story is not fair and accurate or if the defamatory statements are not accurately attributed.

Front 27

neutral reporting

Back 27

A libel defense in a few jurisdictions. Neutral reportage may be found if the defamatory charges are newsworthy and related to a public controversy, made by a responsible person or organization, about a public official or public figure, and accurately and neutrally reported, and if the story includes opposing views.

Front 28

SLAPP suits - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Back 28

Libel suits filed against citizen activists to stop political expression.