|
Edited on Fri Nov-20-09 04:00 PM by paulsby
quote specifically what she said obama said which he never did. unless she was quoting him, paraphrasing is very difficult to sue for libel/slander, direct quotes are easier. recall back to the recent limbaugh brouhaha where several news agencies reported that limbaugh had said certain things on air, that he hadn't said. this is typical with media, in that if one person reports X, then several other agencies take that as face value, and the inaccuracy is replicated. even in that case, he couldn't sue unless he could show "actual malice" as defined by the scotus.
iow, i am not exactly sure what quote you are referring to, but i can tell you the general principles of libel/slander in the USA.
like i said, if she said something that is CLEARLY false (and note that terms like "death panels" don't meet that standard. rhetoric almost never meets the standards for libel. it has to be a specific verifiable falsehood before the actual malice test can even be used. for example, if she said "barack obama, a convicted child molester" THAT would be verifiable as false. saying "barack obama's plan approves a death panel" does not. because, among other things, what exactly is or isn't a "death panel" is incredibly subjective.
here's a nice summary of the standard required by public official to successfully sue...
the last line is especially instructive. in brief, it is VERY difficult for public officials to sue for slander/libel. i'm a public official under that standard, fwiw.
note also the falwell v. hustler case. in that case, blatant falsehoods about falwell were stated, but since it was an "obvious parody' ad, it also did not constitute anything civilly actionable.
Actual Malice:
A burden of proof imposed on public officials and public figures suing for defamation and falsity, requiring them to prove with clear and convincing evidence that an offending story was published with knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. The Supreme Court said in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) that the First Amendment required proof of actual malice in order to protect a wide open and robust debate about government affairs. Proof of falsity and negligence are not sufficient to establish actual malice. The Court said in Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) that the proof of actual malice requires plaintiffs to establish that defamatory statements were made with a “high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.” Actual malice usually requires proof of a combination of factors including dependence on an unreliable source and failure to check factual assertions in the face of substantial reasons to doubt their accuracy. Findings that can contribute to actual malice include minimal deadline pressures, inconsistencies within a story, a failure to check important sources, evidence that journalists knew information contrary to what was published, a desire to increase circulation, and political motivations. The Court has said that actual malice is distinct from common‐law malice, which requires proof of hatred or ill will. In Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. (1991), the Court reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of actual malice but said that use of the term “actual malice” can be confusing and that judges therefore should use the phrases “knowledge of falsity” and “reckless disregard as to the truth?? when giving jury instructions. Since public officials and public figures have been required to prove actual malice, they have rarely won libel suits.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
