Why do so few people sue after being libeled?

Question

Besides the money factor...

Answer 1

Public figures can't.
You would have to show monetary losses to get money out of it otherwise all you could get is a retraction, and it would cost a fortune, you just can't logically say "besides the money" when lawyers charge so much per hour.

Answer 2

Because it can be very difficult to establish and more hurtful to pursue. Libel is a form of defamation (written) as opposed to slanderous defamation (spoken). In order to establish libel, a plaintiff must establish:

1. Defamatory language - i.e., language that has to adversely effect one's reputation. Generally, opinions do not amount to defamation unless based on a very specific set of facts. I.E., "John is a jerk" does not equal libel.

2. The defamatory language must be about the plaintiff- meaning that the average person reading the words must realize whom the article refers. Generalizations won't cut it. I.E., Pittsburgh Steelers fans are all drunks.

3. Publication to a third person by the defendant - pretty easy to establish.

4. Damage to the plaintiff's reputation

HOWEVER - if the defamation involves a public matter, than it is even harder to prove because you need to establish additionally that:

5. The defamatory language was false

6. That the person who made the statement did so knowing it was false or was so reckless to the point that the should have known it was false.

The reason that a lot of these cases don't get filed is the fact that TRUTH is an absolute defense to libel. For example, if Britney Spears wanted to sue National Enquirer for reporting that she is a horrible mother and promiscuous, then National Enquirer would have the right to call all the guys with whom Britney bumped uglies and to call witnesses that testify how many times she's dropped her kids on their heads.

In otherwords, most people would rather let sleeping dogs lie than bring all of this stuff up in the court of law.

Answer 3

Because of the standard of proof.

Unlike in the UK, American laws are very favorable to freedom of the press and expression and such stuff, so a libel victim must prove that the libeller a) knew the allegations to be false and b) published out of malicious intent... unless the offending party bragged of it on TV, that's next to impossible to get admitted in any serious court.

By comparison, UK law demands only that the victim show that the allegations are both unproven and deleterious to his good name ... pretty easy to show, and libel is commonly invoked there.