While freedom of speech is a constitutional right for all US citizens, there are limits. In certain cases, statements made can tarnish and damage the reputation of an individual. If this is the case, an individual can launch a defamation lawsuit against the offending party. Read on as we examine the legal defamation definition, how defamation relates to the First Amendment, and other aspects of this civil tort.
What is Defamation
Defamation is a false or malicious statement made by one individual (defendant) concerning another person. As a result of this false statement, the person whom the statement was directed to (plaintiff) suffers damage to their reputation or character. A defamation lawsuit can be brought up against the defendant to recover for these damages. There are two types of defamation: libel and slander. While both libel and slander are false statements intending to defame another party, they differ in the medium of communication. Libel is a written statement, whereas slander is spoken. Because defamation is a type of dispute between one individual to another, it is typically considered a tort (or a civil wrong). Certain states do have criminal defamation laws, however these are rare.
Elements of Defamation
If one party makes a false or misleading statement about another party, there may be grounds for a defamation case. To be successful, the plaintiff must prove four elements of defamation:
- A false statement was made about an individual.
- The statement was made to a third-party.
- There was negligence or malicious intent on the part of the individual making the statement.
- The individual who is the subject of the statement incurred damages due to the statement.
The burden of proof for a defamation case rests on the plaintiff. This means the person who was the subject of the false statement must prove these four elements for a successful case. As with most civil cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate these elements true by a preponderance of evidence.
Defamation & the First Amendment
Striking a balance between defamation and the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment can sometimes be a delicate matter. On one hand, the US constitution allows for individuals and the press to freely express thoughts and ideas, even if they are controversial. On the other hand, defamation laws protect American citizens or parties from falsehoods that would damage their reputation. The 1964 decision made by the US Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set the tone for how modern-day law views the relationship between defamation and the First Amendment. Under the backdrop of the civil rights movement, the New York Times published a disparaging ad, accusing local police of abuses towards Southern black students. The ad contained a number of factual errors that the police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, took issues with. As a result, he sued the New York Times for defamation. Although the jury originally awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages, the US Supreme Court overturned the ruling. According to the Supreme Court, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” Modern cases aim to walk the line between allowing for freedom of speech while protecting individuals from defamation of character.
Defamation Law & Social Media
With the proliferation of social media in the lives of everyday citizens, accusations and falsehoods are rampant online. While screening for illegal material on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or blogs are common, it’s nearly impossible to sieve out every defamatory statement made. However, defamation laws still apply to social media. Online defamation can include:
- False statements of fact: When another person makes a false statement regarding another individual online. For example, if you commented on Facebook about finding bugs in your food from a restaurant when it was not true, the restaurant could launch a defamation case.
- Content modification: Nowadays, it’s common for users to modify photos of individuals (usually in a disparaging manner), which then goes viral. Memes, cartoons, or caricatures are typically protected by freedom of expression since it is obvious these statements are meant to be received in a humorous or comical way. However, subtle modifications with the intent of making a false statement may be grounds for defamation.
Defamation Law & Public Figures
In the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case, the courts not only set a precedent for greater protection on freedom of expression but it also raised the standard for public figures to sue for defamation. The courts recognized that public figures garner much more criticism and public opinion, due to their vast platform. If public figures sued for every factual error made about them, that could discourage discourse and criticism that is the bedrock to our First Amendment rights. The New York Times ruling stated that public figures could only sue if they can prove ‘malicious intent’ on the part of the defendant. Malicious intent means the defendant recklessly published the false statement even though they knew it was untrue. This protects individuals or the press from false statements mistakenly made about public figures. In contrast, private citizens only require to prove negligence – a much lower standard – for a defamation case.
Valiente Mott
Valiente Mott is a Las Vegas personal injury law firm dedicated to helping victims get the maximum compensation possible. We offer a free consultation where we sit down and assess your unique case. Contact us today to schedule an appointment!
FAQs
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject ...
What are the criteria for a defamation lawsuit? ›
To prove defamation, you must determine that the statement can easily be described as false, published, harmful, or unprivileged. It's imperative to show that you have been the victim of inevitable negative defamation consequences, such as decreased income, loss of money, or tarnished reputation.
What is defamation of characteristics? ›
Defamation of character is an act that occurs when someone's reputation and integrity are tarnished or damaged because of malicious intent by another party. You may have heard the terms libel and slander. Slander is orally dishonoring someone else, while libel is written defamation.
What are the elements of defamation definition? ›
Defamation is a communication from one person to at least one other that harms the reputation of an identifiable third person, where the communicator (the publisher) has no legal defence. The law of defamation aims to balance the right of free speech with protecting a person's reputation against harm.
What is the burden of proof for defamation of character? ›
Unfortunately, defamation of character claims are extremely difficult to prove in the court. As the plaintiff (the accusing), the burden of proof falls on you to prove the defendant (the accused) did what you're claiming.
What are the elements to sue for defamation? ›
In California, you must prove five elements to establish a defamation claim:
- An intentional publication of a statement of fact;
- That is false;
- That is unprivileged;
- That has a natural tendency to injure or causes “special damage;” and,
- The defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence.
Who Cannot sue for defamation? ›
The public has a right to criticize the people who govern and influence them, so public figures have less protection from defamation than private individuals. Public figures must show that they were defamed with actual malice.
What is character evidence for defamation? ›
Character is in issue in a defamation case when the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of having a general flaw, e.g., accusing Hillary Clinton of being a liar. Character is not in issue if the defamatory statement falsely accuses the plaintiff of a specific act, e.g., Hillary lied about Benghazi.
How to prove slander? ›
To have a chance of winning a slander lawsuit, you typically need to show:
- False statement. The slanderous statement must be false.
- Publication. The false statement was communicated to another person other than you and the defendant.
- Harm. ...
- Intent.
What are the essentials of defamation? ›
There must be a publication of the defamatory statement, that is to say, it must be communicated to some person other than the plaintiff himself. In case of slander, either there must be proof of special damages or the slander must come within the serious classes of cases in which it is actionable per se.
Understanding the Basics of Defamation
In order to prove a defamation case, a plaintiff must show that there has been a false statement, about the plaintiff, that has been published and seen by members of the public, and which has caused the Plaintiff damage.
How to win a defamation case? ›
Generally, to prove defamation, you must show that a false statement was made, about you, to third parties, and which caused you damage. Once you have evaluated your case, and determined that you can satisfy these elements, you can then proceed with pursuing your matter.
What qualifies as slander? ›
To slander is making a false statement about another person or people verbally with the intent to defame the subject of the statements. Slander is a legal term used to describe defamation, or harming the reputation of a person or a business by telling one or more others something both untrue and damaging about them.
What is prima facie defamation? ›
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject ...
Why is defamation so hard to prove? ›
It is so difficult for public figures to meet the actual malice standard and prove defamation that most defamation defendants spend most of their legal preparation time trying to prove they are not actually in the public eye. Their reputations, according to the court, are not as fragile as that of a private person.
What is a preponderance of the evidence for defamation? ›
Defamation requires the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1. ∂ communicated something; a. If the π is a private figure and the communication is on a matter of private concern, we presume the communication is false, and the ∂ must prove it is true as an affirmative defense.
What are the three things to prove in a defamation case? ›
Understanding the Basics of Defamation
In order to prove a defamation case, a plaintiff must show that there has been a false statement, about the plaintiff, that has been published and seen by members of the public, and which has caused the Plaintiff damage.
How hard is it to win a defamation lawsuit? ›
Winning a defamation lawsuit requires thorough evidence, legal expertise, and a strong argument to prove the elements necessary to establish your case.
What warrants a defamation lawsuit? ›
To prove defamation in California, the plaintiff (the person suing) needs to show: The defendant made a false statement of fact about the plaintiff. Opinions don't count. The statement was published or shared with at least one other person besides the plaintiff.
What are the defenses to defamation? ›
The defamation defenses are truth, absolute privilege (including litigation privilege addressed here), qualified privilege, innocent construction, and opinion. Truth is the absolute or complete defense to defamation.