Where does the right to be free from libel or slander come from?

Question

I know that the standards for public officials was established in New York Times v Sullivan, and that there is a different standard that is applied to private individuals in Gertz v Welch. In Gertz we find that ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye. Where does this protection originate in the Constitution?

I am not suing for libbel or slander, you idiot. I am taking a Constitutional law class and after studying these two cases I had this question.

Answer 1

markelmc is partly right.

Libel and slander (collectively called "defamation") are common law "torts", not common law "crimes". A tort is a wrongful action which permits the injured person to sue another for damages. A crime, of course, is a mechanism for punishment by the state.

A person has no "right" to be free from defamation; however, a person who is damaged by defamation (a tort) can sue the defamer for damages. In the US (but not the UK), truth is an absolute defense against a suit for defamation. (For example, if I write that you spent time in prison and you sue me for damages, you will not prevail if I am merely saying something true, however damaging it might be to your reputation.)

There are also some jurisdictions where libel and slander can be criminal, although this is quite limited.

You'll find a lot of information on this subject in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel ). Also, try a Yahoo or Google search for the terms slander, libel, defamation, or criminal slander/libel/defamation. (I personally find it a very interesting topic.)

Answer 2

I think you are misunderstanding the issue. Libel and slander are crimes established by legislation. In this case, libel and slander are common law crimes. The standards you speak of are established in case law by the judiciary which interprets laws and them applies them. There is no right or protection against libel or slander in the Constitution. While such speech may not be "protected" by the First Amendment, one would not sue on a libel or slander claim based on the speech being unconstitutional, they would sue based on the speech being criminal.

Answer 3

The First Amendment provides for freedom of speech; however, not all speech is protected. Case law has established the limits on free speech.

BTW, the New York Times standard does not just apply to public officials, but to anyone who has placed themselves in the public spotlight, either by one act, or several acts.

Answer 4

Libel and slander lawsuits are for desperate people. If you are desperste enough to sue for libel and slander than you have serious issues. Thats almost as bad as the person that sued mcdonalds for 3mil.a nd won...It ruins it for people that were truly affected by a real crime and have to wait years and years for a trial date.