17

The definition of defamation, itself, doesn't change. What may change is whether certain kinds of false statements are "so bad" that it is not necessary to prove that the person was actually damaged by the statement, i.e. is defamation per se. In California this is Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished ...


10

If a factual statement is implied, rather than explicit, it can still constitute defamation. "T looks like a thief" may be an expression of opinion ("I think that T might be a thief") or it might be a slightly oblique way of saying "T is a thief". That would ultimately be a matter for the finder of fact, often a jury in the ...


8

Changing social norms don't change the definition of defamation, but they do change the definition of defamation per se. Just such a change is going on now, as courts consider whether it is necessarily defamatory to say that another person is gay. The definition of defamation Social norms do not change the definition of defamation. Broadly spealking, ...


8

No They do not commit the necessary actus reus by ignoring, or not even reading, a defamatory post. To be guilty, one has to act: by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation


7

In the United States, a website that is labeled as parody and that a reasonable reader would, upon reflection, recognize as not stating true facts is protected under the First Amendment, so no liability will attach. The key case on this point is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). At the time, Campari Liqueur was running an ad campaign in which ...


5

Some simplified points of basic defamation law as background: A critical element of defamation law is that the defendant said something false. You therefore can't win a defamation case if it's based on a statement that can't be proven false: "You are annoying." "You are ugly." "You are a bad lawyer." If a statement can't be ...


5

Truth is a defense to defamation Bob must prove the truth of his statement if Rob sues - there is a reverse onus for this defense. Because this is a civil trial the burden is balance of probabilities. Provided Bob can prove Rob stole his bike he will win. A conviction for doing so is pretty good (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence. Absent that, Bob ...


5

“Serious harm” is a requirement in the Defamation Act 2013 The Supreme Court interpreted it in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd & Anor [2019] UKSC 27 (12 June 2019) at [10-20]: ... it not only raises the threshold of seriousness above that envisaged in Jameel (Yousef) and Thornton, but requires its application to be determined by reference to the actual ...


5

This is defamation, a civil matter, where you may sue the person who makes these statements. If you sue them, the question is whether accusing a person of sexually abusing a 2 year old would lower the person in the eyes of others, and the answer is "Yes, you don't even have to prove that there was actual harm" (this is know as per se defamation): ...


5

Typically in defamation law, claims made persuiant to litigation are not defamatory, since they are going to be tested for validity if the case goes to trial. I'm not familiar with any differences in what is generally done in settlements between the U.K. and the U.S., but since both are Common Law countries, and Settlements are very common in civil ...


5

Under U.S. law, Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) limits liability for comments solely to the comment maker and not to the video uploader or YouTube. It basically says that there is no duty to moderate except for copyright upon a takedown notice. Normally takedown notices would be directed to YouTube which has a process that handles that, and not to the uploader,...


4

Either is possible Let's look at a very recent example: Dominion sued Guliani and Powell separately. But Smartmatics sued both plus Fox at once. Their allegations are even very similar. The benefit of Smartmatics' approach is, they only need to file documents once, and only meet one time the filing fee. Parties may try to get their case split off, then they ...


4

If the claimant shares their believe that X is the reason for dismissal, with friends or colleagues, can they later face defamation charges? The viability of a defamation suit depends on the import and basis of ex-employee's statement(s). Your mention of "ex-employee's belief" suggests the ex-employee made statements of opinion, not statements of ...


4

Re: Any jurisdiction... In england-and-wales, this scenario falls within the Defamation Act 2013 The burden is on Rob to show - on the balance of probabilities - that Bob's statements on the billboards have caused "serious harm" to his reputation. s.1(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious ...


4

No one can give you a meaningful answer unless you specify what jurisdiction you're in. Assuming you're in the United States: There's no liability for defamation. The company using your picture isn't saying anything about you. Whatever you might feel the implications are, the reasonable reader would not view the ads and conclude that you are actually sick or ...


4

Would alleging that someone was "out of line" with prevailing norms in the above fashion be grounds for defamation even though these norms have changed over time? It depends on the type of norms. For instance, legislation outweighs social norms. Statutory law in some/many jurisdictions makes it actionable to falsely impute a want of chastity. See ...


4

It does not matter at all whether the statement you made is "private" in the sense that you only told one other person. Defamation is "making a false, damaging statement to a third party", so just one third party person is all it takes. However, critical opinions as to having sinned etc. are neither false nor true, whether the person is a ...


4

Does criticizing public figures constitute libel especially in a private group? It depends on the specifics, but a priori your description suggests that the defense of honest opinion would be applicable. This is regardless of whether the subject is a public figure and regardless of whether the statements were in private --albeit non-privileged-- ...


3

Here are a few examples (sorry, they are in German) https://www.echo24.de/region/kuenzelsau-24-jaehriger-verurteilt-gefaengnis-beleidigungen-instagram-13181018.html https://www.mainpost.de/regional/main-spessart/beleidigung-bringt-34-jaehrigen-ins-gefaengnis-art-8445139 https://www.maz-online.de/Lokales/Brandenburg-Havel/Gericht-verhaengt-Gefaengnis-wegen-...


3

Do we have any grounds to sue for defamation? At the outset it seems unlikely, although this is hard to determine without seeing or knowing more details about those ads. Depending on details that are missing in your description, you might have other claims that have nothing to do with defamation such as unjust enrichment. It is common knowledge that people ...


3

Any legal issues for writing about your parent(s)? No. Furthermore, the answer you got from the Free Legal Aid Clinic is wrong. There is no need for pseudonyms or ambiguities such as "a family member". As long as your statements of fact are truthful, identifying actual individuals in your narrative is lawful (this applies to US as well as Canada ...


3

this is wrong to bring this around my girls. Is there anything I can do? If my understanding is correct, your primary concern is the harassment your daughters might endure as a result of the publication(s). In that case, you might want to send the publisher a cease and desist letter where you ask the removal of sensitive information about your daughters. If ...


3

Per your comment responses, Maryland is a two party consent state which means that the other party must consent to your recording IF there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In one's own home is generally considered a place where one has this expectation and thus these recordings are problematic. Depending what you intend to do with them, I would ...


3

That post is probably illegal. Because she is making false assertions about you (that are presumably damaging your reputation), she is likely liable for defamation. Because she has copied a picture of you without authorization, she is likely liable for violating the copyright of whomever owns that picture. Commenters have suggested she might invoke a fair-...


2

are they sued separately or all together? A priori that depends on plaintiff's litigation strategy. But if sued separately, the court --perhaps upon defendants' motion-- may opt to consolidate the lawsuits on grounds that both of them involve the same set of facts. Can the news organization bail out of the lawsuit early and pay a settlement fee or ...


2

Because they lost The procedure was espoused by Aesop in The Fox & the Grapes - don't listen to the loser when they complain that the game was rigged. Also, don't complain that "that's not how they do it in England" - how they play they game in other places is irrelevant. The plaintiff sets the terms of the case Defamation is rarely about out ...


2

In the United States, this is a matter of state law and is not uniform. The common law rule under English law (which the English themselves later codified) (see also here) and the majority rule in U.S. states is that defamation actions do not survive the death of the party that is defamed (although a judgment secured at the conclusion of a defamation action ...


2

(if it can be entered as evidence) how much weight the jury should place on it? None. The "commentary saying that the jury got it wrong" reflects that neither existence nor the sense of the verdict is disputed, whence it would be unavailing for Doe to use the verdict as evidence that he was defamed. For the verdict to be material to Doe's claim of ...


2

Yes, but not here The case on point is Hustler Magazine v Falwell: In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr. as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not ...


2

As no state is specified in the question, I choose to discuss the law in maryland, as well as general common-law principles. Defamation In the case of Frank SAMUELS v. James D. TSCHECHTELIN et al. No. 2044, Sept. Term, 1999. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.) 763 A.2d 209 The court said, quoting past cases:: To establish a prima facie case of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible