Defamatory speech is something that covers a pretty broad spectrum with regard to hurting the reputation of a person. Defamation can be considered spoken or written with each of the two types having their own specific fixes as well as treatment. Take note that in court, this is a civil crime and the victim can sue in court.
Now, do note that there are two types of defamatory action being slander and libel. For slander, these are the cases wherein the defamatory action was spoken such as a lie that was spread in the office or through a public speech. The other type is known as libel and it involves writing a piece that is intended to destroy the reputation of a person.
Of course, the constitution also has principle of freedom of speech backing it. That is why one cannot just simply sue one for defamatory practices since this kind of case cannot cross over the boundaries of freedom of speech. The main determinant would really be whether or not there is malice in the act.
Now, before going to the malicious intent, there has to be a few things that must be proven at the onset. The first thing that has to be proven would be that the statement made by the defamer is false. The next thing that must be proven would be that the statement or the action resulted in some injurious results.
Now, when the victim makes the statement, he or she has to claim that the defamatory action was spoken, written, or even pictured. It also has to be published meaning that a third person saw it or heard it. It does not necessarily have to be on social media or written on a paper but rather, it is considered published if a third party experienced it.
Of course, the whole fact that it was injurious also needs to be proven because it will not make sense to claim damages if no actual damages were made anyway. Some of the things that can be used as evidence would be the fact that a new promotion was waved, one got fired from a job, or neighbors would shun the victim. All of these are grounds for a defamatory action case with intent of malice.
In order to prove that there was an act of malice, the victim has to prove that the statement was not true but the perpetrator did not care to verify whether it was true. Also, the victim will also prove that the perpetrator was reckless and did not bother fact checking for the truth. As long as all of these are present, then the case is solid.
While this sort of civil crime is a little bit delicate to touch because of the presence of freedom of speech, there are many ways to know how to handle the defamatory cases. In general, the best ways to do that would be to prove the case with the criteria that was mentioned above. The next thing to do would be to check for malicious intention which can be determined through the definition that was mentioned above and applying it to the case.
Now, do note that there are two types of defamatory action being slander and libel. For slander, these are the cases wherein the defamatory action was spoken such as a lie that was spread in the office or through a public speech. The other type is known as libel and it involves writing a piece that is intended to destroy the reputation of a person.
Of course, the constitution also has principle of freedom of speech backing it. That is why one cannot just simply sue one for defamatory practices since this kind of case cannot cross over the boundaries of freedom of speech. The main determinant would really be whether or not there is malice in the act.
Now, before going to the malicious intent, there has to be a few things that must be proven at the onset. The first thing that has to be proven would be that the statement made by the defamer is false. The next thing that must be proven would be that the statement or the action resulted in some injurious results.
Now, when the victim makes the statement, he or she has to claim that the defamatory action was spoken, written, or even pictured. It also has to be published meaning that a third person saw it or heard it. It does not necessarily have to be on social media or written on a paper but rather, it is considered published if a third party experienced it.
Of course, the whole fact that it was injurious also needs to be proven because it will not make sense to claim damages if no actual damages were made anyway. Some of the things that can be used as evidence would be the fact that a new promotion was waved, one got fired from a job, or neighbors would shun the victim. All of these are grounds for a defamatory action case with intent of malice.
In order to prove that there was an act of malice, the victim has to prove that the statement was not true but the perpetrator did not care to verify whether it was true. Also, the victim will also prove that the perpetrator was reckless and did not bother fact checking for the truth. As long as all of these are present, then the case is solid.
While this sort of civil crime is a little bit delicate to touch because of the presence of freedom of speech, there are many ways to know how to handle the defamatory cases. In general, the best ways to do that would be to prove the case with the criteria that was mentioned above. The next thing to do would be to check for malicious intention which can be determined through the definition that was mentioned above and applying it to the case.
About the Author:
You can get excellent tips for picking a defamation lawyer and more info about an experienced attorney at http://www.erlangerlaw.com right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment