Is an opinion aimed at a specific individual defamation of character?

Question

I've been reading a little bit about libel, which seems to be written defamation of character. I've also found that defamation is a 'false fact', but I haven't found much to cover opinions.

If I don't like my neighbor, would it be legal for to buy or rent a billboard for a couple years and plaster "I think John Smith sucks!"?

I'm not stating a fact, but it is clearly a negative opinion of the person.

Thank you.

Answer 1

Actually, you ARE stating a fact. You are stating a fact about what you think. And hopefully it's a true fact.

You can be sued for stating this true fact, but you are not likely to lose the lawsuit. Keep in mind that anyone can sue you for just about anything, if they like. To win, they will have to prove that you do not think what you claim to... good luck with that! Just be careful how you state things - you may never make a statement that even appears to be something other than your opinion.

If it were slanderous or libellous to state opinions, even uncomplimentary ones, we would never see poltical protests or op-ed pieces in the paper, much less the many, many blogs we have floating around. But we DO see these in copious amounts. That is because they are completely legal.

So state your opinion all you want. Just keep in mind that other people can state their opinions about YOU, too!

Answer 2

In the USA, defamation is harm to the reputation or character of someone, caused by the false statements or acts of another. It's also called defamation of character.

Verbal defamation is slander, while defamation in writing or print is libel.

You are entitled to state your opinion (verbally or in print) as long as you do not state anything that is not factual or that harms the other party.

For example, if you put up a billboard that said "I think John Smith sucks because he is a pervert." and you couldn't PROVE he really was a pervert, he could sue you for libel as he could claim you calling him a pervert in such a forceful way (advertising it on a billboard) harmed him in some way. (Affected personal relationship, employment, etc.)

However, just stating your opinion:"I think John Smith sucks!" would not open you to slander or libel.

Since billboards run on average $7,000 - $10,000 PER MONTH, that's an awful lot of money to spend to get your opinion out there. I would think taking out an ad in your local paper would be less expensive.

Or just spray paint it on a sign and post it in your front yard... just check with your homeowners association first. They will probably fine you but the fines will most likely be less than the cost of a bill board.

Answer 3

libel (general definition)
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

Given that the statement must be presented as a fact and you are clearly identifying the statement as your opinion, you should be okay. But I would ask a lawyer in your area just to be sure.

Answer 4

do not forget that a large number of posters in this web site have a really low emotional IQ (not psychological), and behave like very small particularly stupid achoolboys. Others are inebriated, even as in cost of a keyboard, and this ends up in them making very unwell seen and hurtful comments (that they could genuinely trust are humorous). some are only undeniable nasty, fortunately those are few and far between. a lot for people, what about comments? This web site should be depending on the common of loose speech, and as long as I`m not plotting with you to rob a economic company or worse then interior limitations, I should be allowed to assert what i like. the position are the limitations? properly some people flow properly over the boundary of solid flavor i imagine all of us agree on that! yet carry out a touch stray over the legal boundary? No I don`t imagine you could educate that from one off the cuff remark. Now if a particular poster tracked all of your Q`s and didn`t answer them except with a flow of nasty and libellous lies about you, over a era of time, per chance you've a case. My advice is to forget it, and push aside the nonsense (both publish and poster) to the recycle bin. wish that facilitates.

Answer 5

You are acting like a child. Why stoop to John Smith's lower level which would make you no better than he. If John Smith bothers you so much then move.

You have no legal grounds but he will if you keep up this behavior.

Move on and be happy.

G.G.

Answer 6

If John Smith suffered adverse impact from your billboard (e.g. he lost his job), he would likely sue you for defamation, since you cast him in a negative light. Your defense could be that it was true; however since it was merely your opinion rather than fact this wouldn't work.

Answer 7

As long as you don't give the impression that you know he sucks.
A magnetic sign on your car would be cheaper and more effective. Then, when you got tired of telling people that you thought John sucks, you can peel it off and you're only out a couple of bucks.

Answer 8

It could be considered defamation of character because you used his name specifically and in public.

Answer 9

If you state it as an opinion I don't think you can be sued like: In my opinion, Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict who should go to jail.

But if you state it as fact, then its libal for example: Rush Limbaugh is a crack addict.

Answer 10

He could sue you and probably will. Forgive and forget bud, be the better person.