Defamation is tarnishing, discrediting, or smearing someone’s good standing in the community or in the workplace through the publication of false information.. In some states, it is a crime whereas in others, it is civil wrongdoing.
There is an instance when the freedom of speech does not protect you when you say something that is false and harmful to others. I am not referring to statements about sexism, homophobia, racism, or the holocaust. Depending on your position in the community, you may be canceled and ultimately boycotted for such statements whether they are true or false. Instead, I am talking about communicating to a third party false statements about a person.
This series discusses defamation and how certain statements may damage the reputation of the ones against whom they are made. More importantly, this series explains the four main elements that may exist for someone to be guilty or be the victim of defamation. Without further ado, let’s begin.
Defamation is a declaration that may damage or tarnish the good name of someone. The laws identify two types of defamation; libel, which is a writing false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation and slander, which is an oral false and damaging statement about someone.
Let’s use this scenario as an example.
Ms. Rose posted a picture of Mr. Richard selling electronic goods and products on the back of his van. The caption reads “Stealing and Reselling Company’s Properties.” Another worker reposted and tagged the Human Resources department on the post. The HR department fired Mr Richard and called the police to escort him out of the building.
Mr. Richard decided to take the issue to court because, according to him, Ms. Rose made the declaration with the intent to damage his good name, and in fact, that declaration did cause him prejudice. However, he claimed that Rose’s statement about him was false.
Mr. Richard’s lawyers brought a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Rose. The court established beyond any reasonable doubt that Rose made the declaration with the intent to cause harm and prejudice to Mr. Richard and Ms. Rose’s declaration caused injury and bias to Mr. Richard. Richard’s lawyers showed receipts of everything he was selling on the back of his van, and the company offered a report concluding no property loss. Moreover, the court established that Ms. Rose lied about Mr. Richard.
In this instance, Ms. Rose would be found guilty of defamation, while Mr. Richard would be a victim of defamation in the form of libel. It is defamation in the form of libel because, although Ms. Rose published the declaration with the malicious intent to cause harm and in fact, succeeded; her declaration was false. Conversely, if her declaration were true, there would have been no defamation and Mr. Richard would have deserved his punishment and his fall from grace.
In general, for defamation to exist, the declaration must be published either in writing or orally, false, indeed be harmful, and be unprivileged.
Let me use another example so I can tell you more about privileged declarations.
Daniel testified in court and under oath that Tony killed his wife. Daniel’s intent was to convince the judge and the jury that Tony deserved to be in prison. In fact, the court found Tony guilty. Later on, an appeal court reversed the decision because new evidence showed that Tony was not responsible for his wife’s murder. Do you think that Tony can sue Daniel for defamation knowing that all the elements for defamation such as slandering, malicious intent, false, and harm exist.
Not all false declarations defiling someone’s image are defamation. Individuals are protected against false declarations made in courts or during judicial proceedings against someone. This is called privileged.
Let me use another scenario that shows that certain people have less protection from defamation than others
Ellis published that candidate Ted made homophobic statements and as result, the LGBT-Q community boycotted him. Although Ellis’s statement was false and caused Ted the election, do you think Ellis would be found guilty of defamation?
Statements harmful to public figures such as politicians, artists, influencers, or other celebrities are not considered defamation. The public has a right to criticize famous people and the government. However, if they were to sue an individual, they would have to show that they were defamed with actual malice or the person who defamed them made the false statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Therefore, talking crap about Ariel Henry, Kanye West, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin. is not considered defamation.
In summary, defamation is tarnishing, discrediting, or smearing someone’s good standing in the community or in the workplace through the publication of false information.. In some states, it is a crime whereas in others, it is civil wrongdoing.
Thank you for listening and remember to like, subscribe, share and comment.
This series discusses defamation and how certain statements may damage the reputation of the ones against whom they are made. More importantly, this series explains the four main elements that may exist for someone to be guilty or be the victim of defamation. Without further ado, let’s begin.
Defamation is a declaration that may damage or tarnish the good name of someone. The laws identify two types of defamation; libel, which is a writing false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation and slander, which is an oral false and damaging statement about someone.
Let’s use this scenario as an example.
Ms. Rose posted a picture of Mr. Richard selling electronic goods and products on the back of his van. The caption reads “Stealing and Reselling Company’s Properties.” Another worker reposted and tagged the Human Resources department on the post. The HR department fired Mr Richard and called the police to escort him out of the building.
Mr. Richard decided to take the issue to court because, according to him, Ms. Rose made the declaration with the intent to damage his good name, and in fact, that declaration did cause him prejudice. However, he claimed that Rose’s statement about him was false.
Mr. Richard’s lawyers brought a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Rose. The court established beyond any reasonable doubt that Rose made the declaration with the intent to cause harm and prejudice to Mr. Richard and Ms. Rose’s declaration caused injury and bias to Mr. Richard. Richard’s lawyers showed receipts of everything he was selling on the back of his van, and the company offered a report concluding no property loss. Moreover, the court established that Ms. Rose lied about Mr. Richard.
In this instance, Ms. Rose would be found guilty of defamation, while Mr. Richard would be a victim of defamation in the form of libel. It is defamation in the form of libel because, although Ms. Rose published the declaration with the malicious intent to cause harm and in fact, succeeded; her declaration was false. Conversely, if her declaration were true, there would have been no defamation and Mr. Richard would have deserved his punishment and his fall from grace.
In general, for defamation to exist, the declaration must be published either in writing or orally, false, indeed be harmful, and be unprivileged.
Let me use another example so I can tell you more about privileged declarations.
Daniel testified in court and under oath that Tony killed his wife. Daniel’s intent was to convince the judge and the jury that Tony deserved to be in prison. In fact, the court found Tony guilty. Later on, an appeal court reversed the decision because new evidence showed that Tony was not responsible for his wife’s murder. Do you think that Tony can sue Daniel for defamation knowing that all the elements for defamation such as slandering, malicious intent, false, and harm exist.
Not all false declarations defiling someone’s image are defamation. Individuals are protected against false declarations made in courts or during judicial proceedings against someone. This is called privileged.
Let me use another scenario that shows that certain people have less protection from defamation than others
Ellis published that candidate Ted made homophobic statements and as result, the LGBT-Q community boycotted him. Although Ellis’s statement was false and caused Ted the election, do you think Ellis would be found guilty of defamation?
Statements harmful to public figures such as politicians, artists, influencers, or other celebrities are not considered defamation. The public has a right to criticize famous people and the government. However, if they were to sue an individual, they would have to show that they were defamed with actual malice or the person who defamed them made the false statement knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Therefore, talking crap about Ariel Henry, Kanye West, Donald Trump, or Vladimir Putin. is not considered defamation.
In summary, defamation is tarnishing, discrediting, or smearing someone’s good standing in the community or in the workplace through the publication of false information.. In some states, it is a crime whereas in others, it is civil wrongdoing.
Thank you for listening and remember to like, subscribe, share and comment.