Libel

Front 1

Libel

Back 1

written defamation

Front 2

Slander

Back 2

spoken defamation

Front 3

Defamation

Back 3

false statements that tend to damage a person’s public reputation through words that attack one’s character or abilities. EX: Oprah Winfrey case where she “Vowed to never eat another hamburger” – 1998 suit with a Texas Cattleman

Front 4

Identification (defamation)

Back 4

Plaintiffs must prove that the defamation was about them individually

Front 5

Actual Malice

Back 5

Knowing reckless falsehood (publishing an item in regards to knowing it is false information)

Front 6

Negligence

Back 6

Not acting as a reasonable person would

Front 7

Seditious Libel

Back 7

Defaming the government

Front 8

Libel proof-plaintiff

Back 8

A reputation is so tarnished that it cannot be further impaired by a fresh accusation

Front 9

Libel per se

Back 9

Words that are libelous “on their face” that can obviously damage the reputation of any person

Front 10

Libel per quod

Back 10

Words that are innocent on their face and become defamatory only if reader or viewer knows that facts.

Front 11

Remedies for Defamation

Back 11

1. Injunctions: court order regarding behavior
2. Retraction: A full, fair and timely apology for defamation. Many states have retraction laws. 3. Most reliable mitigating factor.
4. Actual Compensatory: to compensate for damages to one’s reputation
5. Punitive Damages: Damages meant to punish defendant

Front 12

Distinction of Public Officials

Back 12

Public Officials: constantly in public eye, celebrity, public personality.

Front 13

Distinction of Public Figures

Back 13

Public Figures: momentarily, limited period.

Front 14

Distinction of Private Persons

Back 14

Private Persons: becomes newsworthy, would prefer to remain anonymous.

Front 15

New York Times v Sullivan

Back 15

Constitutionalized the law of libel; defamed the name of L.B. Sullivan in “Heed Their Rising Voices,” could not prove actual malice. Police Commissioner is considered a public figure?

Front 16

Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.

Back 16

Distinguishes private and public persons. Focused on the status of the plaintiff, not on the nature of defamatory statements

Front 17

Defenses in Libel Case

Back 17

Truth, Fair Comment and Criticism, Five Part Test: Five-part test, Neutral Reportage and Consent.

Front 18

Libel Defense: Truth

Back 18

Truth: an absolute defense under common law. But can be hard to prove, since what passes for “truth” in court might be difficult for a reporter to prove. Witnesses, sources, documentation.

Front 19

Libel Defense: Fair Comment and Criticism

Back 19

Fair Comment and Criticism: opinion defense, which cannot be based on false facts.

Front 20

Libel Defense: Five Part Test

Back 20

Five-part test: Common usage, verifiability, context and setting, cautionary language, political or public speech.

Front 21

Libel Defense: Neutral Reportage

Back 21

Neutral Reportage: without malice or bias, reporting both sides of controversial issue of public importance.

Front 22

Libel Defense: Consent

Back 22

Consent: Implicit or explicit consent to publication.

Front 23

Alternatives to libel cases:

Back 23

1. Declaratory Judgement

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

3. News or Press Councils

Front 24

Declaratory judgment

Back 24

Declaratory judgment: A judicial action that answers a legal question without awarding any damages or ordering that anything be done.

Front 25

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Back 25

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Using mediation through an arbitrator or negotiator instead of going through the courts and costly litigation.

Front 26

News or Press Councils

Back 26

News or Press Councils: Independent bodies composed of public and media members which address complaints concerning the media.