Can negative remarks about a person in a blog be considered grounds for libel?

Question

Can defamation of character in a blog be the target of legal action? If so, can you give some examples of what would and would not be considered libel?

Answer 1

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.

This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, about 75 percent of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25 percent in federal courts. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.

Most defendants in libel lawsuits are newspapers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.

In the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. In addition, it is generally accepted in the United States that a sufficiently public figure is "fair game" for all but the grossest libels.

Defences to claims of defamation include:

* Truth is an absolute defence in the United States because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In some other countries, such as Canada, it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
* Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
* Privilege is a defence when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
* Opinion is a defence is recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the person makes a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and allow any statements suggesting a factual basis to support a defamation claim.
* Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
* Consent is an uncommon defence and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
* Innocent dissemination is a defence available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defence can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
* Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimants' position in the community is so poor that even if the statement was defamatory there can be not actual damage to the plaintiff, failing the fourth requirement for a justified libel claim. These claimants' are "libel-proof."

In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous.

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false (also known as actual malice) or with a reckless disregard to its truth.

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.

The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.

Answer 2

Depends upon what you mean by 'negative'.

While the rules for defamation vary by state, they all pretty much include the requirement that the statements be assertion of fact, or imply facts, that they are objectively false, and that they harm either the person's reputation or business interests.

For example, saying "I think so and so is dumb" is probably not actionable. Saying that someone is a criminal, or unable to write beyond kindergarten level , is more of an assertion of fact.

There's also the requirement that the statement not only identify the person being defamed, but also that it result in some harm. While libel (written defamation) often doesn't require specific amounts of damages be provable (depends on the state), there is still a need to show that the published message resulted in some harm to reputation or business interests.

As with all legal questions, the best option is to consult with a lawyer licensed in your state, preferably one familiar with civil defamation claims. Check your local listings.

Answer 3

actually i had this question in a law and ethics class and the answer is yes. they can get you for slander. if you use there name or any likeness about them you can be libel. this as well as email is considered public mean that if more then one person reads it then it has become public and the person can sue you for it. the same is true if you put something about someone in your yahoo IM anyone can read it so its libel. hope this helped you out, and I hope it made since. if not let me know and i'll try to clear it up better.

Answer 4

It depends on whether it is true or not. If it can be proven, it's not libel. If someone says you have a lead foot and are a really rotten driver and you have a dozen tickets for your bad driving then that is a true statement and is not considered libel. If someone says you are thief and a murderer and has no proof, sue them for everything you can get your hands on.

Answer 5

it could be consider libel if the remarks aren't based in fact. Also, if the person being discussed isn't a public figure there could be grounds for a law suit.

Answer 6

If the comments are factual they would probably be ok. For example, "It was learned today Political Boss So and So has an IQ of 92" just reveals a documented fact. However, if you say "Political Boss So and So is a certifiable stupid person" you could be in trouble. In other words, just stick to facts that you can document.

Answer 7

I hope so! Everyone is always telling me how nice and sweet I am so I am assuming that they are right. I always find the good in every person and situation, which is something a lot of people have trouble with, so that is probably why. I have never found someone I couldn't get along with if I try.

Answer 8

I doubt it. You would have to prove it wasn't true and that harm was caused to you. Plus you would have to hire a lawyer and they would want money up front before they started.

Answer 9

I don't think so, no one takes things too seriously anyway. Just a little mindless babble.

Answer 10

Only if they call you by name & others that you know can change their opinion of you. It also has to be proven false.