If one feels like someone has defamed him or her and it affected reputation, one can actually sue the defamer and claim damages. However, defamation cases are not as easy as just suing people because they hurled a few insults. There is actually a process of proving defamatory action in court before it can be considered an actual case.
First of all, a victim of defamatory action can sue for either slander or libel. In the slander cases, it would involve one lying about another person with intent to defame the reputation of said person. The second type is known as libel and that one involves creating a written avenue to defame another person in public.
Another very important thing to consider would be the fact of the presence of free speech. The case has to strike a middle path between what is simply just an opinion that comes with freedom of speech. In any case, the main factor that would separate the two would be the malicious intent to discredit a person.
For victims who feel like they have been defamed, there are a few things that need proven first. First, the defamatory action has to be proven false like it has to be proven that it is a lie. Second, it has to be proven to be injurious meaning that one may lose his or her job, money etc because of the lie.
The next thing that must be solidified would be the statement of the claim wherein the defamatory action is proven and backed up by evidence. First of all, the defamatory action must be published meaning a third party has to have heard or seen it. Evidences could include witnesses, social media posts, articles, or even pictures that showcases the lie.
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.
With all of these criteria present, it is possible to handle this kind of case objectively. It is rather difficult to prove this sort of case because defamatory action often crosses the boundaries of freedom of speech so it is important to strike a balance. The most important part would be the act of malice which can be proven through the definition.
First of all, a victim of defamatory action can sue for either slander or libel. In the slander cases, it would involve one lying about another person with intent to defame the reputation of said person. The second type is known as libel and that one involves creating a written avenue to defame another person in public.
Another very important thing to consider would be the fact of the presence of free speech. The case has to strike a middle path between what is simply just an opinion that comes with freedom of speech. In any case, the main factor that would separate the two would be the malicious intent to discredit a person.
For victims who feel like they have been defamed, there are a few things that need proven first. First, the defamatory action has to be proven false like it has to be proven that it is a lie. Second, it has to be proven to be injurious meaning that one may lose his or her job, money etc because of the lie.
The next thing that must be solidified would be the statement of the claim wherein the defamatory action is proven and backed up by evidence. First of all, the defamatory action must be published meaning a third party has to have heard or seen it. Evidences could include witnesses, social media posts, articles, or even pictures that showcases the lie.
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.
With all of these criteria present, it is possible to handle this kind of case objectively. It is rather difficult to prove this sort of case because defamatory action often crosses the boundaries of freedom of speech so it is important to strike a balance. The most important part would be the act of malice which can be proven through the definition.
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