• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Understanding Libel/Slander & Public Figures

C

cabradio

Guest
Libel: Oral
Slander: Print

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what one can say/write about a Public Figure without it being considered Libelous/Slanderous. Let it be understood here that ANYTHING said about anyone that is UNTRUE is grounds for a lawsuit. Public Figures are NOT exempt from sueing for Slander/Libel just because they are Public individuals. I have TWO sources for you to read:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

The important verbage here is:

the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. [my emphasis]

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm

Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average person since they must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. [again, my emphasis]

There are posts on this board against "Public Figures", i.e. Talk Show Hosts, and people who have some "public" capacity as an employee of a radio station, that are out of line and fall into the SLANDER catagory. PERIOD. It would NOT be hard to prove.

So, unless you are prepared to reveal your identity, and/or reveal your source I suggest you get a different hobby.

<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Slander in the Morning, Mix 98.5
Bob Libel on Sports.......

> Libel: Oral
> Slander: Print
>
> There seems to be some misunderstanding about what one can
> say/write about a Public Figure without it being considered
> Libelous/Slanderous. Let it be understood here that ANYTHING
> said about anyone that is UNTRUE is grounds for a lawsuit.
> Public Figures are NOT exempt from sueing for Slander/Libel
> just because they are Public individuals. I have TWO sources
> for you to read:
>
http:/> /www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
>
>
> Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
> as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New
> York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to
> bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove
> an additional element: That the statement was made with
> "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person
> making the statement knew the statement to be false, or
> issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
> truth.
>
> The important verbage here is:
>
> the person making the statement knew the statement to be
> false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to
> its truth. [my emphasis]
>
http://injury-la> w.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm
>
>
> Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average
> person since they must prove that the party defaming them
> knew the statements were false, made them with actual
> malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. [again,
> my emphasis]
>
> There are posts on this board against "Public Figures", i.e.
> Talk Show Hosts, and people who have some "public" capacity
> as an employee of a radio station, that are out of line and
> fall into the SLANDER catagory. PERIOD. It would NOT be hard
> to prove.
>
> So, unless you are prepared to reveal your identity, and/or
> reveal your source I suggest you get a different hobby.
>
 
Only Lawyers May Give Legal Opinions

I have been practicing law in Massachusetts for the last 27 years and find it troublesome that you as a Non-Lawyer are giving legal advice. In Massachusetts it is a criminal offense for you to give legal advice to the public. You need to be extremely careful here unless you want a prosecutor calling you to explain. Moreover, your "legal" analysis is completely false with regard to the issue of libel in the context of the issues presented here.

In the future, I would suggest you act more responsibly or suffer the legal consequences of your actions in a court of law.







> Libel: Oral
> Slander: Print
>
> There seems to be some misunderstanding about what one can
> say/write about a Public Figure without it being considered
> Libelous/Slanderous. Let it be understood here that ANYTHING
> said about anyone that is UNTRUE is grounds for a lawsuit.
> Public Figures are NOT exempt from sueing for Slander/Libel
> just because they are Public individuals. I have TWO sources
> for you to read:
>
http:/> /www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
>
>
> Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
> as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New
> York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to
> bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove
> an additional element: That the statement was made with
> "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person
> making the statement knew the statement to be false, or
> issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
> truth.
>
> The important verbage here is:
>
> the person making the statement knew the statement to be
> false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to
> its truth. [my emphasis]
>
http://injury-la> w.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm
>
>
> Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average
> person since they must prove that the party defaming them
> knew the statements were false, made them with actual
> malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. [again,
> my emphasis]
>
> There are posts on this board against "Public Figures", i.e.
> Talk Show Hosts, and people who have some "public" capacity
> as an employee of a radio station, that are out of line and
> fall into the SLANDER catagory. PERIOD. It would NOT be hard
> to prove.
>
> So, unless you are prepared to reveal your identity, and/or
> reveal your source I suggest you get a different hobby.
>
 
98.5

Now that's funny! Oral Roberts is walking libel - by the way, is that slander?

Many non-lawyers often put "I am NOT a lawyer, this is information from my investigations on the web; always contact a lawyer for legal advice"...and give links re: finding a good lawyer.

As for Charlie asking people to reveal themselves - that's fair game.
As for "revealing sources" - only with their permission.




> Slander in the Morning, Mix 98.5
> Bob Libel on Sports.......
>
> > Libel: Oral
> > Slander: Print
>
 
Re: Only Lawyers May Give Legal Opinions

Lighten up ! It would have been a more positive post had you stated what you believe the law is with your vast 27 years of practice. Hmmm? Practice? Have you gotten it right yet or do you still have to practice?
_____________________________________________________________________________


> I have been practicing law in Massachusetts for the last 27
> years and find it troublesome that you as a Non-Lawyer are
> giving legal advice. In Massachusetts it is a criminal
> offense for you to give legal advice to the public. You
> need to be extremely careful here unless you want a
> prosecutor calling you to explain. Moreover, your "legal"
> analysis is completely false with regard to the issue of
> libel in the context of the issues presented here.
>
> In the future, I would suggest you act more responsibly or
> suffer the legal consequences of your actions in a court of
> law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Libel: Oral
> > Slander: Print
> >
> > There seems to be some misunderstanding about what one can
>
> > say/write about a Public Figure without it being
> considered
> > Libelous/Slanderous. Let it be understood here that
> ANYTHING
> > said about anyone that is UNTRUE is grounds for a lawsuit.
>
> > Public Figures are NOT exempt from sueing for
> Slander/Libel
> > just because they are Public individuals. I have TWO
> sources
> > for you to read:
> >
> http:/>
> /www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
>
> >
> >
> > Under the First Amendment of the United States
> Constitution,
> > as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case,
> New
> > York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to
> > bring an action for defamation, the public figure must
> prove
> > an additional element: That the statement was made with
> > "actual malice". In translation, that means that the
> person
> > making the statement knew the statement to be false, or
> > issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
> > truth.
> >
> > The important verbage here is:
> >
> > the person making the statement knew the statement to be
> > false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as
> to
> > its truth. [my emphasis]
> >
> http://injury-la>
> w.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm
>
> >
> >
> > Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the
> average
> > person since they must prove that the party defaming them
> > knew the statements were false, made them with actual
> > malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them.
> [again,
> > my emphasis]
> >
> > There are posts on this board against "Public Figures",
> i.e.
> > Talk Show Hosts, and people who have some "public"
> capacity
> > as an employee of a radio station, that are out of line
> and
> > fall into the SLANDER catagory. PERIOD. It would NOT be
> hard
> > to prove.
> >
> > So, unless you are prepared to reveal your identity,
> and/or
> > reveal your source I suggest you get a different hobby.
> >
>
 
Think of Libel and Bible. Both are in writing.

> 98.5
>
> Now that's funny! Oral Roberts is walking libel - by the
> way, is that slander?
>
> Many non-lawyers often put "I am NOT a lawyer, this is
> information from my investigations on the web; always
> contact a lawyer for legal advice"...and give links re:
> finding a good lawyer.
>
> As for Charlie asking people to reveal themselves - that's
> fair game.
> As for "revealing sources" - only with their permission.
>
>
>
>
> > Slander in the Morning, Mix 98.5
> > Bob Libel on Sports.......
> >
> > > Libel: Oral
> > > Slander: Print
> >
>
 
Re: Only Lawyers May Give Legal Opinions

Nice try. Here's another 1 post wonder...Kind of like 1 Hit Wonders. You actually expect people (especially me) to believe that an Attorney of 27 years is going to come out of the wood work, register as a user of Radio-Info specifically to give "council", at 10 pm on a Tuesday night no less? An Attorney of 27 years is going to "council" me (for FREE, at that), on a radio message board? That's laughable too! Don't you have a deposition to prepare for?

Okay, okay...To play your game, and to clarify it for those impressionable minds you have just overtaken...No, I'm not a lawyer, but I am very knowledgeable in matters that pertain to my chosen field. I'm not giving legal "advice". I have merely "quoted the law". I have presented information as it pertains to the Law. I have not told anyone what legal action to take according to my or anyone's interpretation. There is no advice giving here. And if you, with your 27 years of lawyering come to the conclusion I have, well let's just say you must not have many clients (in other words, you're not a very good lawyer). But I digress...

And you're right about the "context of the issues presented here". It makes no difference if something is or isn't slander here on these boards. I can remove a post, or leave it, irregardless of whether it is slander or not. BUT, if someone is slandered, I have no control over what they choose to do. And as a moderator, it is my job to maintain the board's respect in the industry and it's integrity, so we don't get caught in the middle. Kind of like those File Swapping companies that are no longer protected from being sued by the RIAA. They are responsible for HOW users use the software. We would be accountable for how users use the boards.

As far as me acting "more responsibly or suffer the legal consequences of [my] actions in a court of law", I won't be holding my breath. But I did get a good laugh. Thanks for lightening up a serious issue.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Lionel Hutz Is Smarter

> I have been practicing law in Massachusetts for the last 27
> years and find it troublesome that you as a Non-Lawyer are
> giving legal advice.

Why, do you feel threatened? I didn't see any "advice." Do all lawyers have reading comprehension problems or just you?

> In Massachusetts it is a criminal
> offense for you to give legal advice to the public. You
> need to be extremely careful here unless you want a
> prosecutor calling you to explain.

Guess what? This isn't Massachusettes. This is an internet forum. Please, I'd love to hear what a Prosecutor has to say about this on an internet forum. It'll probably be just as humorous as parts of the legal system.

> Moreover, your "legal"
> analysis is completely false with regard to the issue of
> libel in the context of the issues presented here.

You're missing the point (why am I not surprised since you're a lawyer...no wonder your profession gets jabbed at constantly). On forums like this, there ARE people with malicious intent and use their anonymity to engage in those acts. They think they can say what they want about someone (without the facts to back it up) and do it while hiding behind a screen name. Get it yet or does it need to be spelled out in that legaleze-foreign language you legal beagles speak?

> In the future, I would suggest you act more responsibly or
> suffer the legal consequences of your actions in a court of
> law.

In the future, I'd suggest you lighten up. I realize you're a "lawyer" -- err, excuse me, practiced law, but you're intimidation tactic fell flat on its' face. It's a freaking internet forum. Or have you not noticed that yet? BTW, would you please provide legal citations to back up what you're claiming that occurs on an internet forum along legal action that has been successfully taken against those offenders. We're all eyes.
 
Well...it's about time!!

Good to see some mods getting aggression out!

Sarcasm is fun!

Well played!
 
Re: Only Lawyers May Give Legal Opinions

> I have been practicing law in Massachusetts for the last 27
> years and find it troublesome that you as a Non-Lawyer are
> giving legal advice. In Massachusetts it is a criminal
> offense for you to give legal advice to the public. You
> need to be extremely careful here unless you want a
> prosecutor calling you to explain. Moreover, your "legal"
> analysis is completely false with regard to the issue of
> libel in the context of the issues presented here.
>
> In the future, I would suggest you act more responsibly or
> suffer the legal consequences of your actions in a court of
> law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh Come On...let mr moderator get his fix of being powerful and mighty on a MESSAGE BOARD
 
Re: Only Lawyers May Give Legal Opinions

Chill out FRANCIS! Good god. and you wonder why people HATE lawyers so much?? Come down off of you high horse with the rest of the PEOPLE (as dumb as we are).

And your threat is quite laughable.

This is a DISCUSSION board, not a court.

> I have been practicing law in Massachusetts for the last 27
> years and find it troublesome that you as a Non-Lawyer are
> giving legal advice. In Massachusetts it is a criminal
> offense for you to give legal advice to the public. You
> need to be extremely careful here unless you want a
> prosecutor calling you to explain. Moreover, your "legal"
> analysis is completely false with regard to the issue of
> libel in the context of the issues presented here.
>
> In the future, I would suggest you act more responsibly or
> suffer the legal consequences of your actions in a court of
> law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Libel: Oral
> > Slander: Print
> >
> > There seems to be some misunderstanding about what one can
>
> > say/write about a Public Figure without it being
> considered
> > Libelous/Slanderous. Let it be understood here that
> ANYTHING
> > said about anyone that is UNTRUE is grounds for a lawsuit.
>
> > Public Figures are NOT exempt from sueing for
> Slander/Libel
> > just because they are Public individuals. I have TWO
> sources
> > for you to read:
> >
> http:/>
> /www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
>
> >
> >
> > Under the First Amendment of the United States
> Constitution,
> > as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case,
> New
> > York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to
> > bring an action for defamation, the public figure must
> prove
> > an additional element: That the statement was made with
> > "actual malice". In translation, that means that the
> person
> > making the statement knew the statement to be false, or
> > issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
> > truth.
> >
> > The important verbage here is:
> >
> > the person making the statement knew the statement to be
> > false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as
> to
> > its truth. [my emphasis]
> >
> http://injury-la>
> w.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm
>
> >
> >
> > Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the
> average
> > person since they must prove that the party defaming them
> > knew the statements were false, made them with actual
> > malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them.
> [again,
> > my emphasis]
> >
> > There are posts on this board against "Public Figures",
> i.e.
> > Talk Show Hosts, and people who have some "public"
> capacity
> > as an employee of a radio station, that are out of line
> and
> > fall into the SLANDER catagory. PERIOD. It would NOT be
> hard
> > to prove.
> >
> > So, unless you are prepared to reveal your identity,
> and/or
> > reveal your source I suggest you get a different hobby.
> >
>
 
Re: Only Lawyers May Give Legal Opinions

> > Oh Come On...let mr moderator get his fix of being
> powerful and mighty on a MESSAGE BOARD

Yes, and I'll be all mighty and powerful too and tell you if you don't like OUR rules, go play on someone else's court, no pun intended.

<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Libel: Oral
> Slander: Print
>
> There seems to be some misunderstanding about what one can
> say/write about a Public Figure without it being considered
> Libelous/Slanderous. Let it be understood here that ANYTHING
> said about anyone that is UNTRUE is grounds for a lawsuit.
> Public Figures are NOT exempt from sueing for Slander/Libel
> just because they are Public individuals. I have TWO sources
> for you to read:
>
http:/> /www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#3
>
>
> Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,
> as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New
> York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to
> bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove
> an additional element: That the statement was made with
> "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person
> making the statement knew the statement to be false, or
> issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its
> truth.
>
> The important verbage here is:
>
> the person making the statement knew the statement to be
> false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to
> its truth. [my emphasis]
>
http://injury-la> w.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/public_figure_lawsuit.htm
>
>
> Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average
> person since they must prove that the party defaming them
> knew the statements were false, made them with actual
> malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them. [again,
> my emphasis]
>
> There are posts on this board against "Public Figures", i.e.
> Talk Show Hosts, and people who have some "public" capacity
> as an employee of a radio station, that are out of line and
> fall into the SLANDER catagory. PERIOD. It would NOT be hard
> to prove.
>
> So, unless you are prepared to reveal your identity, and/or
> reveal your source I suggest you get a different hobby.
>
Absoloutely right and there has been an ongoing attempt to hide behind the idea that any public figure is indeed fair game and anything that is said about them is ok because they happen to be a public figure. Opinions passed off as fact, agenda rife insults passed off as opinion because "It's my right because so and so is a public figure" enough, enough, enough, Time to crack down on those who think they know the law and think that they are in the right only because they:

A) have not been caught yet

B) have not been sued because they have nothing to sue FOR, as opposed to sue over.

In essence everyone needs to be a little more civil and less spiteful because their own careers are stalled or becuase they think they are waging some crusade via this board. Very little changes because of this board, it's time that we all wake up and realize that and learn to be decent, basic human decency is needed here.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom