Definition of Libel - Research Paper Example

 Definition of Libel Libel refers to defamation by printed or written words, pictures, or any other form of defamation other than by spoken words. The laws governing libel is deemed to have originated in England in the seventeenth century. This was prompted by the growth of publication, which consequently led to the growth of libel. As a result of these two, there was the ultimate proliferation of libel law. More often than not, libel laws tend to conflict with the freedom of speech which ultimately results to a censorship effect, whereby many publishers fear lawsuits (Pressman, 2011). This has an adverse effect of denying the public a chance to access important information, which they could have been freely exposed to, had there not been the stringent libel laws. However, according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the requirements of the United Nation Commission on Human Rights, freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed (Okrent, 2009). Thus, a myriad of jurisdictions have attempted to resolve the incumbent tension in various ways. Another emerging trend with regards to libel laws is the prevalence use of the internet to disseminate information, some which may constitute a libel. Consequently, many jurisdictions have had to extend the applicability of libel laws to incorporate libels committed over the internet. In the United States, libel is governed under the United States defamation law whose history dates back to the time of the American Revolution. Even so, due to the lack of an elaborate libel legal framework in the United States over a long time, the libel laws were largely contingent on the traditional English common law of defamation. However, a remarkable case that laid the framework upon which defamation law was laid in the United States is the famous and prominent New York Times Co. v Sullivan case of 1964, in which the Supreme Court explored defamation claims regarding a public official. It was held that “public officials” were required to prove “actual malice”. Three years later, the Curtis Publishing CO. v. Butts played a palpable role in extending the “actual malice” standard to incorporate “pubic figures” which is rather wide and includes politicians, celebrities and other persons of high profile. Another remarkable case is the Gertz v.Robert Welch, Inc. which guaranteed the power of the states to establish their own standards of liability in libel cases. Using these cases, I establish the background of libel with regards to the substantial changes in the legal framework which governs libel. Much emphasis is placed on the English common law which forms the basis upon which libel law of many countries are based. In addition, the various defenses for libel are discussed at length. Finally, I discuss the applicability of the incumbent libel law to internet libel. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S 254(1964) A remarkable libel case is the case involving the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S 254(1964). This case involved the advertisement that featured in the New York Times, which sought to solicit funds aimed at defending Martin Luther King, Jr. who was facing charges of Alabama perjury inducement (Hall & Urofsky, 2011). Among other information in the advertisement, there were some inaccurate allegations including the mention that the Alabama State Police had arrested King several times. On the contrary, they had only arrested him on four occasions. Thus, the inaccurate criticism regarding the action of the police against King was regarded as defamation especially against the Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner named L.B. Sullivan by virtue of his position as the supervisor of the police department. The Supreme Court later overruled the decision by the state court in Alabama which had initially found the New York Times guilty of libel based on the information printed in the advert (Hall & Urofsky, 2011). Notwithstanding that some of the information in the printed advertisement was false, the Supreme Court held that libel of a “public official” requires “proof of malice”. Thus, on this basis, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Nevertheless, this case laid the ground for proving a libel. In this regards, there are several ways for proving that a libel actually took place. In the case of the United States for example, a person must first prove that the statement was false. After proving this, the person must go ahead and prove that the statement actually caused harm. Thirdly, the person has to prove that the statement was made without extensive research to ascertain the truthfulness of the statement. Additionally, in case the person is a public official, public figure or a celebrity, the person must also prove that the statement made was intended to do harm, or was made with reckless disregard for the truth (Hall & Urofsky, 2011). This is what is commonly referred to as proving malice. Curtis Publishing CO. v. Butts, 388 U.S 130(1967), In the case of Curtis Publishing CO. v. Butts, 388 U.S 130(1967), Wally Butts, a former coach of the Georgia Bulldogs football sued the Saturday Evening Post following an article the had been published in their magazine which alleged that Butts in junction with the head coach of Bear Bryant, conspired to fix games. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Butts. Thus, the Saturday Evening Post was therefore ordered to pay Butts damages amounting to $3.06 million (Halpern, 1998). This amount was however reduced to $460,000 following an appeal by the Saturday Evening Post. Even so, this case instituted the First Amendment protection against defamation claims that are brought by private individuals (Halpern, 1998).Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court regarding this case held that, as much as new organizations are protected from liability when printing information reading public official, they are liable to public figures in case the information they print is recklessly gathered and unverified. Thus, the First Amendment was designed to protect that freedom of the press. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of the United States neglected to use it in most of its rulings on libel cases. More often than not, libel laws were based upon the common law of defamation, which was inherited from the English law. This negligence has had adverse effects on the issuance of justice to those offended by defamation for a long period of time. The lesson to be learnt is that these two Supreme Court cases made it rather more difficult for one considered as a “public figure” or a “public official” to prove a defamation claim by adding an “actual malice” element. This involves proving that a publication was not only harmful and false, but also one was aware that the defaming publication was false and published it anyway. A “public official” is one whose government role is of importance such that the public may have independent interest in his or her fitness for the office. This therefore implies that any individual who runs for, or hold a public office is deemed to be public officials. Conversely, a “public official” may be either a “limited-purpose public figure” or an “all-purpose public figure.” In this regards an “all purpose public figure” refers to a person who possess a continuous and powerful influence on public affairs. On the other hand, a “limited purpose public figure” refers to a person who voluntarily plunges himself/herself into a certain public controversy and therefore is regarded as a public figure with reference to that controversy. Gertz v.Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323(1974), In the case of Gertz v.Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323(1974), a Chicago police officer called Richard Nuccio was convicted for second-degree murder for allegedly shooting and killing a young man in 1968. The family of the deceased hired a lawyer named Elmer Gertz for legal representation in the civil action against the officer. A while later, one publication of the John Birch Society named American Opinion, published a series of articles in that alleged that there existed Communist conspiracy which aimed at discrediting police agencies with the aim of replacing it by a single national force that could facilitate effective implementation of their dictatorship rule they anticipated to impose on the country. At one instance, their article implicated Nuccio’s case as part of their conspiracy with the allegations that Nuccio had been framed for the murder. Thus, this article had adverse effects on Elmer Gertz’s reputation as lawyer. Therefore, Gertz filed a libel suit against Robert Welch, Inc. in the federal court. Following the filing of the suit, John Birch Society went for summary judgment on the basis that Gertz was a public figure with regards to the Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts standards that consequently applied that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard was applicable to anyone who was a “public figure”. Thus, they argued that their statements in the article implicating Gertz were specially privileged. This therefore implied that Gertz was to demonstrate “actual malice”. It can therefore be learnt that whether a person is “public figure” or not requires a fact-specific inquiry. Nonetheless, the American Opinion editor asserted that he had not made any efforts to ascertain and verify the truthfulness of the statements about Gertz, and that he had entirely relied upon the author’s reputation and experience. Even so, the federal court suggested that Gertz was required to prove reckless disregard for truth. However, the court asserted that Gertz was not a “public official” or a “public figure.” Thus, the jury was instructed to consider only damages, after which he was awarded $50,000 in damages. Following his discontent with the federal court’s verdict, Gertz appealed in contest of the pertinence of the New York Times standard in his case. Thus, the Supreme Court held that states are at free will to establish their own standards of liability regarding defamatory statement that have been made about private individuals. However, they should not impose the liability without fault. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled that in case the state’s standard is lower than “actual malice”, then only damages should be rewarded (Goldberg & Zipursky, 2010). Consequently, it became apparent that “strict liability” for defamation, which compels the plaintiff to show that the defendant acted negligently, is unconstitutional in the United States. On the contrary, the strictly liability is applicable in most common law countries. This case therefore paved way for state courts to decide on libel cases and established their own standards upon which these cases are to be decided upon. In so doing however, it is expected that the decisions by the state courts should not contradict with the standards set by the Federal libel laws. In addition, in deciding upon the liability, the state courts should ensure that they impose the liability with fault. At this juncture, it is worth looking at the background of libel. As mentioned, a libel involves the dissemination of information that makes an alliteration, expressly stated or implied to be true, which may give an individual, a group, a business, a government, a nation or a product a negative image. Thus, a libel may be any defaming statement or picture that is published, printed or written. It could be true or false. Most jurisdictions in the world provide for legal actions, including both civil and criminal action against libel. Thus, in some jurisdictions, libel, just like any other defamation, is regarded as a crime rather that a tort. This is however contrary to the requirement of the United Nation Commission on Human Rights which ruled that criminalizing libel violates the freedom of expression. In addition, it leads to the violation of Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which stipulate that “no one is to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, home, or family, or unlawful attack on his reputation and honor” (Goldberg & Zipursky, 2010). Nevertheless, libel laws in many countries including many commonwealth countries, the United States and the Republic of Ireland, originated from the English defamation law(Balkin, 2008). According to the English law, actions for libel may be brought in the high court. This includes any published statements that allegedly defame or hamper the reputation of an identified individual in a way that may cause the losses in their business, profession, or may make reasonable people to think ill of them. The major defenses provided in English law are: justification, fair comment, privilege innocent dissemination, among many others (Pressman, 2011). However, these defenses vary across various jurisdictions. Thus, according to Docherty (2000) justification is whereby a libel claim is defeated if the defendant provides prove that the statement was actually true. However, if the defendant fails to prove the truthfulness of a libel, the court may use the material used by the defense to substantiate the libel, thus aggravating the libel further and increasing the damages. “Fair comment” defense arises in case the defendant proves that the statement was a view that any reasonable person could have held. This defense, otherwise known as the “critic’s defense”, is meant to protect the right of the press to give valid opinions especially on matters of public interest including public figures, governmental activities, general public affairs as well as political debates, inter alia. Goldberg and Zipursky (2010) posit that, for an opinion to be regarded as a fair comment, it must be based on true facts. Also, for an opinion to be a fair comment, the person who makes the comment is required to actually believe in it. This is because the court may measure the comment basing on the objective test. Despite this, a defense of fair comment may still fail in case the defendant shows malice. On the other hand, the defense of “privilege” applies in twofold. First, “absolute privilege” is conferred if the defendant comments were made while in parliament or while under an oath in the court of law. On the other hand, “qualified privilege” applies when reporting or remarking on parliamentary proceedings. It also applies when reporting or remarking on judicial proceedings. Another defense is what is commonly referred to as “innocent dissemination” or mechanical distributor. In this regards, it is generally held that everyone who is involved in the dissemination of information aimed at defaming is held liable as having published it. However, the defense of “innocent dissemination” is aimed at defending people who are involved in mechanical distribution of information without realizing that there was defamation involved. Other common defenses to claims of libel and ether defamation are as follows. First, when statements are made in good faith basing on reasonable belief that they were true, this may be sued as a defense. However, the court may require the defendant to prove the reasonability of the belief. Another defense is opinion. This is a form of defense which is recognized in virtually all jurisdictions. As such, if the allegedly defamatory statement is deemed to be an expression rather that a statement, claims for defamation are unlikely as opinions are renown to be inherently not falsifiable. Other jurisdictions however, fail to acknowledge the legal distinction between a fact and an opinion. A good example is the case of the United Sates, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not provide for the recognition of opinion as a defense for libel. Another defense in some jurisdictions for libel is mere vulgar abuse. Here an insult of a defamatory statement made in anger or during a drunken argument is not necessarily defamatory as in most cases it is not intended to be taken literally or to be believed. Also, fair comments or remarks made on matters of public interest may be regarded as a defense. Be that as it may, in order to be granted compensatory damages under English law, a public figure or public official must prove actual malice. On the other hand, to collect compensatory damages, a private individual must only prove negligence (Okrent, 2009). However, to collect punitive damages, both private individuals and public official or public figures, must prove actual malice. Thus, according to English law, defamatory statements such as libel are deemed to be false, unless the defendant proves their truth. However, in most common law state and all the states in the U.S except Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansan, some categories of false libel statements are regarded as innately harmful and therefore they deemed to be defamatory per se (Mitchelle, 2005). Thus, damages for such false libel statements are presumed and therefore do not require to be proven. In this regards, libel statements are considered defamatory per se if they falsely cause imputations to the plaintiff in various ways. For instance, if statements are injurious to another person’s trade, business or profession, such statements are deemed to be defamatory per se. Also, allegations or imputations regarding loathsome diseases such as leprosy, sexually transmitted disease and mental illness are deemed to be defamatory per se. According to Kenyon (2006), the third category incorporates allegations or imputations regarding someone’s chastity especially in unmarried people, and more specifically women (Kenyon, 2006). The other category of defamatory per se is whereby allegations or imputations made regarding a criminal activity. As the prevalence of internet usage gains momentum in the recent times, it is uncommon for some user to ridicule others, insult and even defame other in one way or another via the internet. One thing that is coming out clear is that, cases of libel over the internet have escalated to large extents. To date, there is merely a handful of libel lawsuits filed involving internet defamation. However, as internet usage becomes more diverse, more and more libel lawsuits involving the internet are likely to crop up. This invokes the question as to whether one could be sue or be sued for libel committed over the internet. The answer here is simple. According to Collins (2011) Libel remains libel, whether in the print media or digital media alike. Thus, the libel and defamation law are applicable even to libel committed over the internet. In this regards, internet users have the right to sue other for defamation over the internet if they can prove that they were caused damage to their reputation with the false information on the internet. In 1993, an Australian anthropologist named Gil Hardwick was ordered by the court to pay damages amounting to $ 40,000 to Rindos for allegedly defaming him through an international mailing list (Collins, 2011). The Case of Keith-Smith v. William in the United Kingdom confirmed that the existing libel laws are also applicable to libels committed over the internet. This case involved Tracy Williams, who falsely accused a Michael Keith-Smith, a former UKIP candidate, of being a racist as well as sexual offender. It was the first internet libel case in the history of the United Kingdom which represented two individual persons. The court ordered Tracy Williams to pay £10,000 in damages plus costs (Balkin, 2008). Conclusion Thus, from the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded despite the inherent conflict between the libel laws of many countries and the requirements of organizations such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, libel laws constitute and integral part of a country’s legal system. As such, libel laws are meant to ensure that the tendencies of defaming others through print media, and more recently through the internet are dealt with accordingly. Of great importance is the 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which explored the defamation claims regarding public officials. It can be learnt that public officials are expected to prove “actual malice” in defamation suits. In addition, the Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts case extended actual malice standards to incorporate public officials including high profile people. Indeed, one thing that turns out clearly is that “public officials” and “public figures” are held to higher standards due to their increased exposure to the risk of injury due to defamation claims and also have higher chance of publicly defending themselves. This implies that they are less likely to be injured by false statements as compared to private individuals. The lesson to be learnt in this regards is that, the libel law affords greater protection to private individuals as compared to public figures and public officials. This is done by not requiring proof of “actual malice” by private individuals. Therefore, it is very important to know your status before bringing a defamation claim. There also arises an inherent conflict between protection of freedom of press and libel. This has greatly affected the press with regards to disseminating important information to the public with the fear of facing libel charges. More often than not, various libel charges have been brought forward implicating various media, making them part with huge amounts of money in liability. There should therefore be a legal balance between protecting the freedom of expression, freedom of the press with the right against defamation. Indeed, many countries in the world have instituted elaborate legal frameworks charged with the responsibility of curbing libel. It should however be noted that libel laws are not meant to infringe the freedom of expression and speech (Tweed, 2012). They are instead aimed at ensuring that whatever that is published about other individuals, groups, businesses, governments and nations are not intended to harm their reputation through false information. As Tweed (2012) puts it, much care has to be taken to ascertain the truthfulness of any information about someone so as to avoid liability due to libel. One notable factor about libel laws in most countries is that they are based on the traditional English common law. The laws stipulate the requirements upon which people may sue of be sued for libel. Possible defenses are also addressed, as well as the possible damages in libel lawsuits. With the advent of the internet, most legal frameworks have extended the relevance of their libel law to incorporate internet defamation as well as seen in the Keith-Smith v. William case in the United Kingdom. References Collins, M. (2011). The law of defamation and the internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Docherty, B. (2000). Defamation law: Positive jurisprudence. Harvard Human Rights Journals, 13, 264-287. Balkin, R. (2008). Law of torts. (4 ed.). Oxford: Butterworths. Goldberg, J. C., & Zipursky, B. (2010). The oxford introductions to U.S. law: Torts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, K. L., & Urofsky, M. (2011). New York Times v. Sullivan: Civil rights, libel law, and the free press. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Halpern, S. W. (1998). The law of defamation, privacy, publicity, and moral rights: Cases and materials on protection of personality interests. Chicago: Anderson Publishing Company Kenyon, A. (2006). Defamation: Comparative law and practice. London: UCL Press. Mitchelle, P. (2005). The making of the modern law of defamation. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Okrent, C. (2009). Torts and personal injury law. (4 ed.). New York: Delmar Cengage Learning. Pressman, S. (2011). An unfettered press: Libel law in the United States. Retrieved from http://usinfo.org/enus/government/overview/libellaw.html Tweed, P. (2012). Privacy and libel law: The clash with press freedom. London: Bloomsbury Professional. Read More