Libel and Slander: You Can’t Hide Behind the First Amendment Forever
One may think that all that he or she says is protected under the First Amendment and it’s free speech clause, but there are limitations to this law. Libel and slander are unprotected areas of speech, as its only motive is to harm the person or topic. According to our text book, libel is the defamation of character in written or broadcast forms, while slander is spoken language that can hurt someone. A libelous or slanderous statement could be any false statement that ridicules or harms someones business or profession.
Our good friend Spiderman helps to explain the two terms.
In 2011, soccer star David Beckham sued a magazine for $25 million for publishing that he had slept with a prostitute. However, the judge for the case rejected Beckham’s case, because the libel laws in the United States hold celebrities to a different standard than to those who are not famous. The court said that Beckham had to produce evidence of “actual malice” to prove that the magazine had published libel against him. Although Beckham’s lawyer had proof that he was not with the prostitute, there was not enough evidence to keep the case in the court system.
If you’d like to read more about Beckham’s experience with libel, read this.
While Beckham’s case was a recent bout of libel in the public eye, still the most known case of libel and slander was that of the New York Times v. Sullivan case of 1964. This case led to many stipulations being put on court cases that revolved around libel and slander. Some of those being different categories of people that can be affected by the published works, a long list of things that must be proven against the publication, and a differentiation between public and private plaintiffs. They say that the best defense against libel and slander is the truth. Those in the court cases are granted privilieges not given in other cases, to help protect themselves more.
Cute and pertinent to the discussion :)
After reading this chapter and focusing mainly on libel and slander, I cant help but wonder how the increase in social media and online publications is going to effect these types of publications.
Do you think that it is easier to make a libelous or slanderous comment online? Should a comment made online be treated the same as something published in a reputable source? Are libel and slander less of a big deal with the introduction of social media and the anonymous nature of the internet?
I do believe that it is easier to make a libelous or slanderous comment online today as teenagers and kids do it every day. We call it cyber bullying although it is protested against daily it to is slanderous. I have to say yes a comment made online should be treated the same as something published in a reputable source because today what a reputable source is various. Now a days people go looking for information on the very social media sites we use daily so it shouldn’t be taking lightly. I believe it is taken less of a big deal with the introduction of the social media.
I agree with Brittany that is much easier to hide behind a key board and write untrue and nasty statements about others. However, I think that comments or statements posted to the web do not hold the same degree of importance as things that are published by a reputable source. There are many examples of slanderous comments posted being published anonomously on the web, and these should not be taken seriously because there is such an unclear source to the information. Also, many people believe that they can post something on the web, let it stir the waters, and then delete the evidence. On the other hand, once something has been published in print, it is very hard to destroy all the hard copies. I believe that slanderous claims are much more thought through when the comment will be published.
I agree that it is a lot easier to make a libelous or slanderous comment online. Just having the access to social media or the ability to comment on things allows for people to have an active voice, but it also can lead to harsh or false statements being posted frequently. This being said, I think that slander and libel online is much less important and pervasive than if the statement comes from a reputable source. I do not think that false online statements that do not come from an important media outlet should be treated the same way as false statements from reputable sources. Not only would it be impossible to prosecute everyone who makes these statements, but I think it is generally unnecessary because the statements do not hold the same weight.