Defamation - a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism. Common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action. Libel and slander both require publication. The distinction between libel and slander lies in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. Offending material published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures is slander. Published in more durable form, for ex: in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is libel.
2007-04-16 05:01:35 · 6 answers · asked by damron 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
What about it? No one has the freedom to harm others. Christians will still be tried for assault and battery if they literally start casting stones...does that infringe freedom of religion?
2007-04-16 05:07:57 · answer #1 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
While there sometimes appears to be a conflict between defamation, slander, libel, sedition when juxtaposed against the term "freedom of speech" supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment, the conflict arises because we take the term as an absolute dictum which is not what was the intent of the amendment.
It's very common for all of us to toss experessions like this around as though they are 'absolute' without studying or referring to the intent of the law, how it came to be and the underlying history of how it came to be or, worse still, how the law has treated it historically.
When preparing the language of the First Amendment, no effort was made, deliberately so, to give a definition to the term in question. This left the door open to discourse which has since followed.
Everyone would benefit from a study of the First Amendment, the history, the legal precedents that have evolved since it became part of the Constitution.
You may find the following a better and more thorough reference than Wikipedia:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
This contains an exhaustive compilation of information. Be careful, it could enhance your education!!
2007-04-16 12:34:27 · answer #2 · answered by pjallittle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech gives you the right to say it, but one also has the right to be protected from it. You're not actually punished for saying it but defameing the other person, the outcome, or potential outcome of the action. You can still say the same thing privately however, as long as the outcome is not defamatory
2007-04-16 12:16:54 · answer #3 · answered by matt2571483 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is not defaming someone.
Free speech is expressing of ideas, opinions, etc. without governmental control.
Your freedom stops at the point where you infringe upon someone else's "freedom". Slander is obviously such an infringement.
2007-04-16 12:08:28 · answer #4 · answered by Wyoming Rider 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
free speech is a part our country. Yes defimation is certainly not my idea of how to address situation sa with quoting a wikipedia cite either, but alas it is a part of our society. Yes Don Imus is an idot I will not argue with that one, but he is not the only one who defames others for laughs. Look at the people around you. There is much more defimation than what you think. It is considered just talk. It is much more than that. Free speech allows us to listne to our worst enemies with courage and determination.
2007-04-16 12:09:28 · answer #5 · answered by Andrea W 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes that's the definition of defamation. What does that have to do with free speech?
2007-04-16 12:05:35 · answer #6 · answered by MI 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋