Hillary’s defenders say this is tantamount to blaming her for Bill’s infidelities. Of course, she’s not responsible for his philandering. But as a fully vested member of Bill’s political operation, Hillary had as much. Journalism, like any profession, has its own language and specialist words which practitioners need to know. The following glossary contains more than 500 definitions of terms about journalism and the media - including new. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the U.S. Hillary Clinton says Donald Trump was trying to 'stalk' her on the debate stage last weekend. She says it was 'really weird. Oprah.com House Rules. We require respect and good manners from everyone participating in our online communities. Review our House Rules and Terms of Use for more information.![]() ![]() Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. Slander is a civil w. ![]() Libel and Slander legal definition of Libel and Slander. Twotortsthat involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any. Defamationthat can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard. Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical. To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication. To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory. Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on- line bulletin board. The defamation need not be printed or distributed. However, if the defendant does not intend it to be conveyed to anyone other than the plaintiff, and conveys it in a manner that ordinarily would prevent others from seeing or hearing it, the requirement of publication has not been satisfied even if a third party inadvertently overhears or witnesses the communication. Liability for republication of a defamatory statement is the same as for original publication, provided that the defendant had knowledge of the contents of the statement. Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory. Common carriers such as telephone companies are not liable for defamatory material that they convey, even if they know that it is defamatory, unless they know, or have reason to know, that the sender does not have a privilege to communicate the material. Suppliers of communications equipment are never liable for defamatory material that is transmitted through the equipment they provide. In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense; the defendant need not verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established. If the plaintiff consented to publication of the defamatory material, recovery is barred. Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. Privilege confers Immunity on a small number of defendants who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public's business—for example, attorneys, judges, jurors, and witnesses whose statements are protected on public policy grounds. Before 1. 96. 4, defamation law was determined on a state- by- state basis, with courts applying the local Common Law. Questions of Freedom of Speech were generally found to be irrelevant to libel or slander cases, and defendants were held to be strictly liable even if they had no idea that the communication was false or defamatory, or if they had exercised reasonable caution in ascertaining its truthfulness. This deference to state protection of personal reputation was confirmed in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 3. U. S. 1. 03. 1 (1. U. S. Supreme Court stated, . This reasoning was confirmed in Beauharnais v. Court again held that libelous speech is not protected by the Constitution. In 1. 96. 4, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in new york times v. For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection of the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a police official, had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel. The Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. The Court wrote that . It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes . The actual- malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had . Court found that a nonelected official . Similarly, in Monitor Patriot Co. Court found that a candidate for public office fell within the category of public officials who must prove actual malice in order to recover. Eventually, Sullivan's actual- malice requirement was extended to include defendants who are accused of defaming public figures who are not government officials. In the companion cases of Curtis Publishing Co. Butts and Associated Press v. Court held that a football coach at the University of Georgia and a retired Army general were similar to public officials in that they enjoyed a high degree of prominence and access to the mass media that allowed them to influence policy and to counter criticisms leveled against them. These rules make it difficult for a plaintiff to prevail in a libel action. For example, in Levan v. Capitol Cities/ABC, 1. F. 3d 1. 23. 0 (1. Cir. 1. 99. 9), a federal appeals court dismissed a libel action against a television network because the plaintiff could not prove actual malice. BFC Financial Corporation (. Levan and BFC based their case on a segment that had been aired on ABC's television program . Prior to Butts only public officials had to prove actual malice. In the years since this decision, the public figure doctrine has proved a troublesome area of the law, primarily because it is difficult to apply with any consistency. Some, generally from the news media, have called for making it easier to classify a person as a public figure. Others believe that a strict line must be maintained between public and private figures, so as to prevent the damaging of personal reputations by the media. Both sides agree that greater clarity is needed in defining what constitutes a public figure. Those who favor a less restrictive definition of public figure argue that Freedom of the Press requires such a definition. It is in the public interest to encourage the reporting of news without fear that the subject of a story will sue the news organization for libel. Without adequate safeguards news editors may resort to self- censorship to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit. In a democratic society, self- censorship would prove to be a damaging restriction on the public's right to information. For these advocates the Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 4. U. S. 2d 7. 89 (1. First Amendment. The Court held that a person who . For example, should a Hollywood entertainer or a professional athlete be cast as a public person in a libel suit? Do these persons have ? As for persons who become involved in public events, courts have been unable to articulate a consistent standard for measuring whether a person . Studies have revealed contradictory ways of applying the Gertz standard. Some commentators have advocated abandoning Gertz and replacing it with a . Under this test if an article or story involves public policy or the functioning of government, it should be protected by the public figure doctrine. Therefore, if a story discusses a relatively unknown person's Divorce proceeding or supposed Communist political leanings, this would be a matter of public policy (divorce law or political parties) that invokes the actual- malice standard in a libel suit. The use of subject matter analysis would give public figures more protection than they currently have under Gertz. A story about the private life of an entertainer or professional athlete would generally not involve a public issue under even the broadest definition. Under the subject matter test, the celebrity would not be forced to prove actual malice. Defenders of the Gertz decision admit that the public figure concept has been difficult to apply, but argue that the subject matter test is not a good alternative. They note that although freedom of the press is an important value, the need to protect the reputation of private citizens is also an important societal value. Citizens are encouraged to participate in public affairs, yet a liberal reading of the public figure doctrine could discourage participation if there is no redress for injury to reputation. In addition, private citizens who are deemed public figures could never match the news media's power and pervasiveness in telling one side of the story. Even with the difficulties inherent in Gertz, defenders note that it narrowed the public figure category in ways that protect the public. The decline of this group, a demographic of our country that has been slowly disintegrating over forty years, has been reported on with growing frequency and alarm, but has never before been written about as searingly from the inside. Vance tells the true story of what a social, regional, and class decline feels like when you were born with it hung around your neck. They raised a middle- class family, and eventually their grandchild (the author) would graduate from Yale Law School, a conventional marker of their success in achieving generational upward mobility. Vance piercingly shows how he himself still carries around the demons of their chaotic family history. And it is an urgent and troubling meditation on the loss of the American dream for a large segment of this country.
Delving more deeply into the question of Hitler's religious faith than any researcher to date, Weikart reveals the startling and fascinating truth about the most hated man of the 2. Adolf Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was God.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2016
Categories |