Could I get in trouble for slandering?
October 30th, 2013
Depends where the article is published. Newspapers perhaps so but the internet, I very much doubt it.
There are comments all over the internet slagging companies off and I think legal departments would implode if they persued every one.
Incidentally, slander is defamation verbally, libel is defamation in the written form.
You have freedom of speech, but slander is against the law, and charges can be filed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
No, but you could get charged with libel. Seeing as how slander is when you maliciously defame someone verbally.
Wikipedia will teach you more, a class in defamation law will teach you the most and Black’s Law Dictionary isn’t too bad to look at either.
Saturnsid replied: Depends where the article is published. Newspapers perhaps so but the internet, I very much doubt it.
There are comments all over the internet slagging companies off and I think legal departments would implode if they persued every one.
Incidentally, slander is defamation verbally, libel is defamation in the written form.
So what your saying is that I have the right to say what I want and the right to deal with the consequences of such things, including being sued and being financially ruined.
As others have mentioned, it’s Libel.
If you wanna post an article about a Company on the internet – just provide any documented evidence to back up what you are saying, and don’t go ranting. Don’t speculate or make unsubstantiated allegations.
Most of the big companies employ private firms to scan through newspapers/internet search engines everyday for artcles about them, a friend of mine runs a company doing it here.
First they would probably just ask you to take down the article before going any further, chances are you ain’t got any money anyway, so pointless them suing you.
If you are pissed with a company and want something resolving, send them the article first and tell them you are going to publish it. Get someone experienced in life with their head screwed on right to check it first.
gilly replied: First they would probably just ask you to take down the article before going any further, chances are you ain't got any money anyway, so pointless them suing you.
Yep, this ^^
Since many places have scripts that allow you to upload or post with out the owner of the site manually reviewing it them selves, the owner’s of the site simply say, “i didn’t put that there”.
To accommodate this they have what is called a “take down notice”. Which means if your requested to take an item down and you take down the request item(s) within 24 hours, weather the item requested to be taken down was in violation of something, illegal, or not; as long as its taken down, no legal actions can be brought upon the owner.
If you wanna post an article about a Company on the internet - just provide any documented evidence to back up what you are saying, and don't go ranting. Don't speculate or make unsubstantiated allegations.
Or just say “allegedly” before you make your false claims and you should be in the clear.
Basically:
it’s libel, not slander (written opposed to verbal), and neither apply if you have 100% proof of what you are writing or saying.
It might mean going to court to prove that 100% certainty, with its attendant legal costs and such.
It really depends on what you are saying/writing, and what company, and just how much defamity is involved.
“KFc give crap service” is not the same as “KFC killed my father and put my mother in hospital”, unless you have a doctors proof that it was a salmonella infected kfc dinner that did it!.
The former is opinion and not actionable, the latter is a definite defamation and would be acted on and you’d need to have all your proof ready!
Al this depends on where you are (did you say, or do we just assume you are in usa because yanks all feel the whole world is just usa?).
America is the home of stupid litigation!, UK a lot less so (although it is the home of nannying and PC crapola!), Canada is more easy going, Australia was like Canada, but is heading into yank territory.
The UK is full of litigation Fluffbutt, just go to any County Court at 10am
If I am not happy with a company, or service I get, I have no compunctions about suing them in the County Court, it doesn’t cost much, if you have a great case then costs almost certainly get awarded against them. Most of the time the Respondent doesn’t even turn up at Court and a judgement is made against them.
I’ve had the bailiffs enforce a Court order against British Gas for not paying me money they owed me.
Al this depends on where you are (did you say, or do we just assume you are in usa because yanks all feel the whole world is just usa?).Op said he is from California. In the UK, is the suing process very stringent? I prefer the US system, I would rather have more freedom to sue someone who has wronged me than have less legal tools available to me in a lawsuit where I was harmed. (Assuming that is what you mean by the UK being less litigious.) If not, then please explain, if you don’t mind.
America is the home of stupid litigation!, UK a lot less so (although it is the home of nannying and PC crapola!), Canada is more easy going, Australia was like Canada, but is heading into yank territory.
On a side note, why do people still call US citizens “Yanks”? Nearly everyone in the US hates the NY Yankees, the Civil War where the yanks fought the rebels is history. It doesn’t have anything to do with masturbating, does it? because yanks could be interpreted by some as a person who is performing that act. Was there some sort of internationally-known ‘incident’ that took place involving a US citizen?
Edit, never mind, gilly kind of explained the legal part i was wondering about.
Most of the stuff in the US that is considered ridiculous is the fine print they put at the end of every commercial. Stupid stuff, that is common sense to everyone, but there is always that one guy who thinks putting a plastic bag over his head is perfectly healthy, since the plastic bag didn’t have a warning telling him otherwise. Do you put safety labels on everything or do you assume people will act rationally? Apparently its the former in the US. Then you get those people who take advantage of things like that and sue you because they slipped on the wet mopped floor that didn’t have a sign warning them it’s slippery when wet. Those kind of cases won’t end until every single thing in the US has a safety warning on it. It sure is a good time to be a tort lawyer in the US.
It is very litigious here in the UK, but you cannot get Legal Aid to pay for a solicitor/advocate (lawyer) for most things, unless it’s something like medical negligence and the case is worth over £10k, and you have no money.
For this reason alone most people don’t proceed with flippant cases as you have to pay for a legal team, but some firms will take a good case on for a no win no fee basis. (During the day there are ads by such firms on TV every 15 mins)
On the other hand, if you have a great case, it’s low value, and can fill in a form, pay a few pounds, and attend Court and just state the facts – it’s very easy to do yourself.
Most Respondents either don’t turn up at court, or settle before the court hearing.
As already explained above….Laws vary depending on the country and in case of USA, depending on the state.
As mentioned UK has strict Laws regarding the Libel while Laws in USA are more ambiguous.
Consequences:
Indirect Action: A well established (and influential) company and/or person may complain to your service provider (internet or hosting or both). It is often the case that service provides will terminate their service to individuals and leave no recourse for the individual.
Direct Action: A well established (and influential) company and/or person may sue and in case that they can relate your libellous action to financial loss (i.e. loss/reduction in income) they may sue for ridiculous amounts just to prevent others from pursuing such actions.
Bearing in mind that such companies have a large purse for their legal expenses comparing to an individual, they are often victorious and even if not, the legal cost for the individual is often enough to make the individual bankrupt.
In case of “Individual vs Individual”, Cyber-Bullying is fast establishing a place in the Law.
If you have documented evidence to backup any claims, then it’s not Libel anyway, it doesn’t matter where in the world you are. (Although I wouldn’t do it in Middle Eastern Countries, you might end up with a fatwa against you or something)
Big companies use bullying tactics all the time in the hope you will back down.
gilly replied: It is very litigious here in the UK, but you cannot get Legal Aid to pay for a solicitor/advocate (lawyer) for most things, unless it's something like medical negligence and the case is worth over £10k, and you have no money.We have a similar system regarding legal aid for the needy, unfortunately they aren’t the best lawyers or else they’d be working at a top firm, unless they were very kind, and if I’m not mistaken, I’ve heard of instances where if the defendant wins, then he can sue the plaintiff or the court for court costs and lawyer fees. Don’t quote me on that though.
For this reason alone most people don't proceed with flippant cases as you have to pay for a legal team, but some firms will take a good case on for a no win no fee basis. (During the day there are ads by such firms on TV every 15 mins)
On the other hand, if you have a great case, it's low value, and can fill in a form, pay a few pounds, and attend Court and just state the facts - it's very easy to do yourself.
Most Respondents either don't turn up at court, or settle before the court hearing.
But yeah, if you are suing and lose, you have to pay. If you are the defendant in a criminal or civil case and lose, you have to pay.
The high retainer fees (~$4k for an average lawyer, if you want a Johnny Cochrane type and you have to ask how much, the answer is: you can’t afford it…) that lawyers charge you before they even defend you, prevents most lower-income scam artists from abusing the system with their frivolous claims.
Most of the law firms that take the case for free, usually are doing it because it involves a violation of the US Constitution and those are always career shaking (or is it career making, pardon the rambling) cases, or if someone has been publicly wronged, the law firm steps in and takes their case for the goodwill and publicity that representing the client will bring them. Of course though, there are plenty of good-nature lawyers, I said that without even smirking, that do cases without charging. That’s probably one of the only lawyers I would trust.
(it seems that UK lawyers are a lot nicer than their US counterparts.)
However, I find it very strange that people defend themselves without legal assistance and supposedly do that often, in the UK. If you tried that in the US against a suave, smooth-talking district attorney with an Ivy League education, and you weren’t 100% fully prepared for every possible scenario the lawyer will bring up, you will, with a high degree of certainty, be eaten alive in court.
Are these cases you mentioned where the defendant represents himself, a jury trial decided by citizens, or is it just the judge, and the two sides, with the judge playing himself, the jury and the executioner? (scratch that last part about executioner since we’re talking about the UK, i know we’re barbarians, it’s sickening, but that’s a different topic, probably already made in the SD forum…) Even with just a judge and the two opposing sides, the US legal system is full of formalities and procedures, unless you’ve brushed up on trial law or have seen all the Law & Order episodes and especially paid attention to the last half of the show, you will slip up and possibly incriminate yourself or give the prosecution the evidence they need to convict you. Stuff that wouldn’t have happened, if you had a proper lawyer.
In smaller courts (local and municipalities), such as traffic court, you can represent yourself and you might win if you know how to talk honestly with the judge and most importantly if you’re not guilty… but other than that, if you ever get arrested in the US at a state or federal level, please, for your own good, hire a lawyer.
erosman replied: As already explained above....Laws vary depending on the country and in case of USA, depending on the state.
As mentioned UK has strict Laws regarding the Libel while Laws in USA are more ambiguous.
Consequences:
Indirect Action: A well established (and influential) company and/or person may complain to your service provider (internet or hosting or both). It is often the case that service provides will terminate their service to individuals and leave no recourse for the individual.
Direct Action: A well established (and influential) company and/or person may sue and in case that they can relate your libellous action to financial loss (i.e. loss/reduction in income) they may sue for ridiculous amounts just to prevent others from pursuing such actions.
Bearing in mind that such companies have a large purse for their legal expenses comparing to an individual, they are often victorious and even if not, the legal cost for the individual is often enough to make the individual bankrupt.
In case of "Individual vs Individual", Cyber-Bullying is fast establishing a place in the Law.
Yeah, those superinjuctions or whatever they;re called are kind of a slap in the face to free speech and freedom of the press to do their jobs: report factual news. It seems as it is always some athlete or musician or famous and rich that are the ones responsible for getting them passed, if that’s the proper terminology. Are they above the law or something?
gilly replied: Big companies use bullying tactics all the time in the hope you will back down.
You can’t use the “allegedly” scheme I was talking about earlier, in the UK to avoid defamation charges?
Even though the UK and the US have common law and are essentially the same type of system, the individual procedures and formalities are what separate it, and in some cases cause people to dislike one or the other. But at the end of the day, the two countries courts are nearly identical except a few formalities and different procedures.
I guess it’s time for me to finally watch Law and Order: UK…
@ Bob Newhart
Legal Aid here is different to what you are referring to. This is paid by the Legal services Commission to any solicitor that you instruct, if you are entitled to it.
Here we have a similar thing in criminal cases, it’s called a “duty solicitor” – they are usually very young and not even qualified, and have to be there on a rota system. Most criminals from my experience tend to stick with the same firm of solicitors, (usually the one that gets them off the most).
Civil courts, it is just a Judge, no jury. So you are only putting a case forward on plain facts in lower courts (County Court) no need for a solicitor in most cases. Usually it doesn’t even go before the Judge, they sit both sides down first in a room with a Registrar to try reach an agreement.
At the moment, it’s being discussed about abolishing Jury trials as they are too antiquated, and unreliable. They have already done away with Jury trials in complex fraud cases, as the juries get too confused