If extrinsic facts or additional information about the person being defamed is required to understand the harmful effect of the statement, then it cannot be defamatory per se. That is not to say the statement is not defamatory if extrinsic facts are required; it just cannot be defamatory per se. If a defamatory statement does not fall into one of the defamatory per se categories or requires extrinsic facts, then it is considered defamatory per quod.
In other words, a plaintiff alleging defamation per quod must be able to show specifically how the defamation caused a specific, quantifiable loss of money such as the commission from a lost sale or the salary from a lost job. Defamation law continues to change and evolve.
Defamation attorneys must have extensive knowledge of First Amendment and other aspects of defamation law to effectively prosecute claims for businesses, professionals and individuals who have been defamed.
We are knowledgeable regarding the changes and complexities of this evolving area of the law. We are committed to fighting for our clients' rights in the courtroom and at the negotiating table. With offices conveniently located in Chicago and Elmhurst, Illinois, we have successfully litigated and settled defamation, trade libel, internet defamation, and cyber smearcases for clients all over the Chicago area.
To schedule a consultation with one of our skilled attorneys, you can contact us online or give us a call on our toll-free number at or locally at Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm. Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure.
A defamation case is a particularly difficult kind of lawsuit to win. Courts and juries like to preserve the freedom of speech as much as possible. It is also hard for a jury to try to put a dollar value on the loss to your reputation. Translate this page:. This information is not intended to be legal advice regarding your particular problem, and it is not intended to replace the work of an attorney. Problem Solvers Problem Solvers Info. Other Resources OregonLawHelp.
Volunteer Opportunities Public Member Application. The media defendant argued that the Times v. Sullivan standard should apply to any defamation plaintiff as long as the published statements related to a matter of public importance.
Justice Brennan had taken this position in his plurality opinion in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia The Court sided with Gertz on this question and found a difference between public figures and private persons. For these reasons, the court set up a different standard for private persons:. We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.
This standard means that a private person does not have to show that a defendant acted with actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation suit. The private plaintiff usually must show simply that the defendant was negligent, or at fault. However, the high court also ruled that private defamation plaintiffs could not recover punitive damages unless they showed evidence of actual malice. In its opinion, the Court also determined that certain persons could be classified as limited-purpose public figures with respect to a certain controversy.
The high court then addressed the status of Gertz. The high court determined that he was a private person, not a limited-purpose public figure. These cases show that perhaps the most important legal issue in a defamation case is determining the status of the plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public official, public figure or limited-purpose public figure , the plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted with actual malice with clear and convincing evidence. In several defamation cases, the Court found that individuals were private figures instead of public officials. For example, the Court ruled that a scientist who had received a research grant from the federal government was a private figure in Hutchinson v.
Proxmire Similarly, in Time v. Firestone , the Court held that the wife of a wealthy industrialist was a private figure. If the plaintiff is merely a private person, the plaintiff must usually only show that the defendant acted negligently. If the private person wants to recover punitive damages, he or she must show evidence of actual malice.
A defamation plaintiff must usually establish the following elements to recover:. There are numerous defenses and privileges to a defamation claim. These defenses can be either absolute or qualified. Many of these vary from state to state. Sometimes, a particular party has carte blanche to make certain statements even if they are false. This is called an absolute privilege.
Other privileges can be established as long as certain conditions are met. These are called qualified privileges.
Some of the more common defenses and privileges include:. Truth or substantial truth: Truth is generally a complete defense. Or stated another way, falsity is a required element of a defamation claim and, thus, truth is a defense.
The substantial truth doctrine means that as long as the bulk of a statement is true, the defendant has not committed defamation. Statements in judicial, legislative, and administrative proceedings: Defamatory statements made in these settings by participants are considered absolutely privileged. For example, a lawyer in a divorce case could not be sued for libel for comments he or she made during a court proceeding. Likewise, a legislator cannot be sued for defamation for statements made in discussing bills.
Fair report or fair comment: The fair report privilege , which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, generally provides a measure of protection to a defamation defendant who reports generally accurately about the deliberations of a public body, such as a city council or school board meeting. Libel-proof plaintiffs: This defense holds that some plaintiffs have such lousy reputations that essentially they are libel-proof.
For example, those with extensive criminal records could be considered libel-proof. Rhetorical hyperbole: Rhetorical hyperbole is a First Amendment-based defense that sometimes can provide protection for a defamation defendant who engages in exaggerated and hyperbolic expression. For example, the U. Supreme Court once ruled in Letter Carriers v. Retraction statutes: Nearly every state possesses a retraction statute that allows a defamation defendant to retract, or take back, a libelous publication.
Some of these statutes bar recovery, while others prevent the plaintiff from recovering so-called punitive damages if the defendant properly complies with the statute. Defamation, like many other torts, varies from state to state. For example, states recognize different privileges and apply different standards with respect to private-person plaintiffs.
Interested parties or practitioners must carefully check the case law of their respective state. Defamation suits can further important interests of those who have been victimized by malicious falsehoods. However, defamation suits can also threaten First Amendment values by chilling the free flow of information.
Once again, this is why many states have responded to the threat of meritless defamation suits by passing so-called Anti-SLAPP statutes. David L. Hudson, Jr. This article was published May 14, Anderson, David A. First Amendment Limitations on Tort Law. Brooklyn Law Review 69 : —
0コメント