Internet Slander/Libel a Short Synopsis

[liontracker]

Please do not interpret this post the wrong way. It is not meant to be destructive in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, it is meant to educate the readership as to the rights afforded an American Citizen, under the Federal Laws of the United States of America. It is my sincerest intent, that this post will pull this BGH site from the muck and mire that is bogging it down and will allow this site to reach the potential for greatness that it inherently possesses. I know that an opinion is worth what you pay for it. This one here cost $500.00 per hour and considering the source, I would consider it highly professional and worth heading. The internet is not some form of Wild West Show, where anything goes, as some so adamantly believe. There are still legal consequences for the actions taken thereon, as in all facets of our lives. Below is a brief synopsis of my findings as pertains to this issue.

Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.

If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred. Slander and libel are two forms of defamation.

Defamation Generally
The reason for having defamation laws as a civil remedy in tort is because 'A person has the right to his good name'. Defenses are nevertheless available for balancing the interest of freedom of speech, such as the defense of fair comment and justification.

What is defamatory?
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. Alternatively speaking, the matter tends to make the plaintiff shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society. The meaning of the defamatory nature of the statement can be literal or by inference.

Libel and Slander distinguished
A distinction has to be drawn between libel and slander. Libel: are publications in permanent form while slander are publications by spoken word or other transient means. Unlike slander, damage is presumed in libel actionable without proof of special damage.

Meaning of 'Permanent form"
Permanent form can be something in writing or in other permanent form. Examples are electronic communications via e-mail, newsgroups, message board, homepages are matters of permanent form. Broadcast by radio, TV, Internet, public performance, film soundtrack, CD, tape-recording also meet the requirement of 'permanent form'.

Requirement of Publication
The statement must be published by communicating to at least one person other than the person defamed.

Examples on the Internet are:
Usenet posting / e-mail to a third party, such as by cc. copy / message board / chat room /world wide web /

Don't I have a right to express my opinion?
Yes, so long as your statement of opinion is just an opinion, not containing specific facts that can be proved untrue.

There's a world of difference between saying "I think he's a crook," and "he's a crook". Especially if a third party might inadvertently leave out the first two words when passing your message on.

What damages are available for slander or libel?
If you have been defamed you may seek both actual damages, to recover the harm that you have suffered, and punitive damages to punish the person who made the remark (and serve as an example to deter others).
If the defamation improperly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the Court or jury can assess the damages, which can be substantial.

…and here is the kicker. It has been found that the owners of these sites are liable as well. The very fact that these posts are allowed, is considered admission on their part of approval of these posts.

Example:
Suppose that you're surfing the Internet when someone asks about your recommendation for buying coins from a particular dealer, or about the general reputation of the person. Or, to posit another real life example, let's say that you're in a chat group on America Online when someone asks whether or not it's true that a specific person stole large cents from the collection of the American Numismatic Society.

These are not pretend questions. These and other similar instances occur everyday. Before the Internet, there were comments made at coin clubs, on dealer-to-dealer teletype, and elsewhere. Regardless, the issues are the same.

What do you answer, if at all, to these questions - and what are the potential consequences of an informal conversation in which you make a serious claim against another person, even if they are a fellow collector?

This is the case on the Internet or if a letter is published in a club publication. It's also true when you offer a derogatory reference or statement about another person to a third party.

There's an easy answer to the question, but judging from the chat on line today, it seems clear that either there is popular disagreement with the answer, or those who chat simply have a devil-may-care attitude that could prove costly.

The reason for this is, a false statement that is damaging is defamatory, a branch of law known as a tort, and that which is defamatory can give rise to substantial damages. When stated orally, it is known as slander; when in writing, libel.

This tort first surfaced about the year 1275, just 60 years after the Magna Carta was signed and sealed at Runnymeade by Britain's King John. Initially, it was no doubt intended to protect the barons and feudal lords from the statements or claims invoked by the serfs.

In the intervening 725 years, it has become a mechanism by which individuals can protect themselves against the gossips of society, and those who "publish" a libel, or a slander, thereby disseminating it.

Publishing does not mean having a printer set it in type and then offset it into the distribution channel of commerce. The essence of the legal cause of action is an untrue statement that is uttered orally (slander) or in writing (libel) that is damaging to another.

There are exceptions, and there are provisos. But a false statement recklessly made may be subject to substantial economic punishment.

Today, defamation may be defined as the making of a false statement, which tends to adversely affect one's reputation, thereby exposing one to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.

There are five basic elements which must be proven in order to establish a prima facie case of defamation (without taking into account any defenses):
defamatory language orally uttered or printed (published) by the defendant;
the statement made concerns the plaintiff, and not some other person or entity;
a publication by the defendant has taken place to a third person;
that as a result of the "publication", injury has been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff;
in some instances, malice need also be shown for there to be recovery.

Publication also does not mean printing it in a newspaper or magazine. It can be as simple an act as writing it in a private letter intended to be seen by only one other person, and actually seen by that person. (If seen by more than one person, it proceeds to the issue of more damages).

Certainly, it can be as simple an act as publishing on an Internet bulletin board that someone is a "crook", or that they "stole", or that they were somehow dishonest and performed their business tasks improperly.

Damages must always be proven, but if it comes in the form of a loss of business reputation, or wrongfully accusing a person of a crime, and the statement is false, the damage is presumed -- the victim need only prove that the statement is false.

The law presumes that certain statements, whether printed or oral, automatically cause damage to the victim of the calumny. If a person is accused of a crime, they are presumed damaged if the statement is false.

So too, if their business is attacked, such as calling a physician a butcher, depicting a lawyer as a crook, or an investment banker as an incompetent bumbler is considered defamatory per se.

It hasn't yet been fully decided whether a chat group is libel or slander, since it mimics talking, but really is writing -- with "publication" coming with the carriage return that sends the line into cyberspace. This is a technical issue that will probably involve law review articles, and all sorts of scholarly debates for the foreseeable future.

But that makes little difference because except for minor technical differences, each seeks to punish defamatory conduct by allowing for substantial damages to be collected.

There is an added problem that libel and slander occur at the time of publication, and the author is not the only one liable-- so is the publisher.

Hobbyists are not that unusual in speaking with frankness about their colleagues

But in reaching the conclusion that there is a duty to convey information, the courts have repeatedly held that there is also a duty of accuracy. Moreover, if the sender of the erroneous message can be found to have knowledge that it is false, or no proof that it is true, regular damages may have punitive damages added on.

Scams find their way onto the wires, and the Internet, all the time. The key is to be certain that before you repeat what you hear, or before you start a rumor, be certain that it can be substantiated -- and that it's true.


There are certain qualified privileges that are involved. If you're a public figure -- an elected official, for example, and perhaps the elected officer of a club if the position is public enough -- even wrong things can be said about you, as long as it is without malice. If it is malicious, it is compensable.

In summary, it all goes back to what your mother said to you as a kid: if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it. Because if you do, you might have to pay the piper.

If you do find yourself in a situation where a claim of libel or slander is made against you, don't panic. You may have protection that you didn't know you had in the form of homeowner's insurance, which protects against "advertising injury" that includes claims of defamation.

But don't go testing out this area of coverage with much enthusiasm, because if the action taken was malicious, it is probable that coverage will simply be disclaimed.

If you find yourself in a pickle on this, consult your insurance agent, or even your local lawyer. Before you get into that jam, think twice about what you write, or what you say that you might regret at another time in the cool light of the morning.

I hope that this helps the BGH site, to reach the tremendous potential that it inherently possesses.

Best Wishes to all,
Liontracker

[mnb&t]

what in the world is that all about???

[George Streepy]

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

For $500 an hour I would think they would have given you some legal citations or legal refrences to direct us to.

You could have saved some money and got those definitions from google.

Heres the link to the high priced legal assistance.

http://www.netslander.com/the_law_and_net_slander.htm
http://law.freeadvice.com/general_pract ... amages.htm

[liontracker]

George, I do indeed have the info you mention, if anyone would like to pay for it, then I will share it. Otherwise lawyer/client confidentiality. Please do not try to undermine the seriousness of the issue. Thanks.

[George Streepy]

Liontracker,

I understand the hurt feelings and the seriousness of the issue. I just can't believe that deals over dogs can get us to this point. I agree with you on so many issues and I for one am not the type to try and defame any one. We all need to take a deep breath and realize that when we make deals with people they can go south pretty easy. I am fortunate to have legal council readily available at any time. We also looked up some citations and it isn't as cut and dry as you may think. I also found most of what you posted on free websites that anyone can access. So I hope you didn't pay to much for it.

The only reason I responded to this is because I believe it is silly. No offense mister, but I don't get why you would post that. I agree that people need to be treated with a little more respect, which hopefully will be a positive upturn for this forum. Things can get out of control quick when dealing with money. I personally try to remedy any unhappy customers way before it turns to the point of insults. That approach has kept me out of bad situations, even though it may have made me the guy that lost the most money on a deal gone bad.

I am not an attorney and this should not be intended as any sort of legal advice but be careful when thinking you have slam dunk slander/defamation case. You could easily end up paying for your attorney and the defendants as well.

Take care,
George

[liontracker]

Thanks for the advice George, it was well recieved and taken. The real underlying issue has nothing to do with money dealings. The real issue has gone so far south as to have crossed the line of any humans acceptance. I suppose wile I am clearing the air, I may as well go all the way. Let me think of how I want to expose it and get back to you.

P.S. No I did not pay for that free info, just passed it along for free.

[grouse]

Not to insinuate anything . Is it still slander if it's true ? Because my understanding is if it's an untrue statement then it's considered slander .

[liontracker]

Absolutely not.

[Buddyw]

I personally try to remedy any unhappy customers way before it turns to the point of insults. That approach has kept me out of bad situations, even though it may have made me the guy that lost the most money on a deal gone bad.

That's what I try to do also. Doesn't always work out, but at least I know I tried to make sure I gave it my best. I'm sure there are a couple customers that are not happy with me for something, I've made some mistakes before and I always try to own them myself, But I'll step up and openly appoligize and take my licks when I've not done them right.

I wasn't going to comment on this.. But I agree with most. (read "all" ) of what george said.. I try not to blindly agree with anyone so we'll just call it "most"

Here is my take on the issue.. And I'm talking more than just Lion tracker here. I've been told several times that if I don't remove a post or don't stop something than I could be sued, NOrmally I don't give it much credit, I just figure I'll deal with it when it happens.. (In Lion trackers defense he did not claim this I don't want to give any indication that he's threatened to sue me. He has not!.. Although there is a hint of this in the text above by reference to being a "publisher" that I could be libel as the publisher of this site.)

So this is not directly related to Liontracker I've got no issued with lion tracker personally I think we would get allong just fine in person.

I've just used this as an Example since it was posted publically But since we are speaking in General and educational terms... I just asked for a quick opinion on this post as an example here is what came back.

He's mostly right on the law. However, defamation suits are one of the
hardest cases to prove . . . Courts are always dancing around the
issue of what is an opinion versus what is a statement of fact. And hey, truth is always a defense!! Most judges will give
you nominal damages, like $100. . . . plus you'd have the problem of
gaining a judgment (assuming you won the case) in your home state, and
then hiring another lawyer in the state where the defendant lived to
try and chase his assets there. Its not a good idea to go around
saying bad things about someone's character, but I think Liontracker
is being more than a bit overzealous about his concerns.

I've said it before when I have to baby sit the site, too much it's just not going to be worth my time.

Just my .02 cents.

[liontracker]

Hey there Buddy,

I was educated on how hard this would be to prove. Normally, these things are just verbal, however in this instance it is in writeing for all to see and digitally preserved for eternity. Given that, the judgement will be comensurate to the damages, not an arbitrary $100 number. Gaining judgement and collecting on it has not been much of problem in the past. Seems a bit overzealous, until you walk a mile in my shoes and understand the full depth of what has been thrown at me behind the scenes. The issue has not been exposed in it's entirety.


That's all I am willing to say for now. Let's wait and hope it goes away.

[houndnhorse]

For Christ's sake, why are we even entertaining this crap. Put your big boy panties on and get over it.

[Budd Denny]

For Christ's sake, why are we even entertaining this crap. Put your big boy panties on and get over it.

x2

[liontracker]

x3