If one feels like someone has defamed him or her and it affected reputation, one can actually sue the defamer and claim damages. However, defamation cases are not as easy as just suing people because they hurled a few insults. There is actually a process of proving defamatory action in court before it can be considered an actual case.
Now, take note that the spoken form of defamatory action is known as slander and involves one spreading lies about another in a malicious intent to ruin a reputation. If the lie is written, like in a public forum like social media or newspaper, then it is known as libel. Both need proven in court for the case to work.
Of course, the constitution also has principle of freedom of speech backing it. That is why one cannot just simply sue one for defamatory practices since this kind of case cannot cross over the boundaries of freedom of speech. The main determinant would really be whether or not there is malice in the act.
Now, before going to the malicious intent, there has to be a few things that must be proven at the onset. The first thing that has to be proven would be that the statement made by the defamer is false. The next thing that must be proven would be that the statement or the action resulted in some injurious results.
The next thing that has to be proven would be the fact that it was published. Now, published does not mean put in a newspaper or a social media account. Rather, it the lie or the false statement was seen or heard by a third party person, then it is already considered as a published content that may be grounds for a defamatory action case.
Of course, it must be a false claim and it must also be injurious to the reputation of a person and he or she will lose something. Once those things qualify, then the case will have more weight to it. As mentioned above, there will also be the need to prove that there was actual malice in spreading a false statement since there is the element of freedom of speech.
Now, intent of malice is pretty hard to prove but most laws would have a solid definition of how to determine the intent of malice. First of all, malice will be proven if ever the perpetrator did not bother to check the facts before blurting out the statement. So whether it was accidental or not, the intent of malice can be applied.
The reason as to why these kinds of civil wrongs are rather delicate to handle would be because it sometimes crosses the boundaries set by the principle of freedom of speech. Individuals should be able to voice out their opinions without having to worry about being accused of defamatory action. However, this privilege already ends when there is actual malice to defame a person and if the statement is completely false but claimed to be true.
Now, take note that the spoken form of defamatory action is known as slander and involves one spreading lies about another in a malicious intent to ruin a reputation. If the lie is written, like in a public forum like social media or newspaper, then it is known as libel. Both need proven in court for the case to work.
Of course, the constitution also has principle of freedom of speech backing it. That is why one cannot just simply sue one for defamatory practices since this kind of case cannot cross over the boundaries of freedom of speech. The main determinant would really be whether or not there is malice in the act.
Now, before going to the malicious intent, there has to be a few things that must be proven at the onset. The first thing that has to be proven would be that the statement made by the defamer is false. The next thing that must be proven would be that the statement or the action resulted in some injurious results.
The next thing that has to be proven would be the fact that it was published. Now, published does not mean put in a newspaper or a social media account. Rather, it the lie or the false statement was seen or heard by a third party person, then it is already considered as a published content that may be grounds for a defamatory action case.
Of course, it must be a false claim and it must also be injurious to the reputation of a person and he or she will lose something. Once those things qualify, then the case will have more weight to it. As mentioned above, there will also be the need to prove that there was actual malice in spreading a false statement since there is the element of freedom of speech.
Now, intent of malice is pretty hard to prove but most laws would have a solid definition of how to determine the intent of malice. First of all, malice will be proven if ever the perpetrator did not bother to check the facts before blurting out the statement. So whether it was accidental or not, the intent of malice can be applied.
The reason as to why these kinds of civil wrongs are rather delicate to handle would be because it sometimes crosses the boundaries set by the principle of freedom of speech. Individuals should be able to voice out their opinions without having to worry about being accused of defamatory action. However, this privilege already ends when there is actual malice to defame a person and if the statement is completely false but claimed to be true.
About the Author:
You can get excellent tips for picking a defamation lawyer and more info about an experienced attorney at http://www.erlangerlaw.com right now.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment