In law, one of the most dangerous lawsuits to be thrust into is libel or slander. It is not only one of the hardest things to prove, but it can also be one of the most costly lawsuits. It takes a lot of hard evidence to prove that someone has committed libel or slander against you.
Many times, people claim libel or slander when it really isn't true. Defaming someone is a hard thing to prove because you have to prove that it has cost you financially and otherwise.
The legal dictionary defines defamation as "Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation).
A large part of determining whether or not to award damages is whether or not the figure filing the suit is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law.
It was in 1964 that this was first established in New York Times v. Sullivan. Sullivan, the plaintiff and police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court said that a public official suing for libel must prove actual malice, meaning the libelous information was intended to harm the person's reputation and the person writing or speaking the information knew it was reckless and false.
Public figures voluntarily put themselves in situations that call for close scrutiny (like athletes). Private citizens have more leeway with situations like that and their privacy is important in considering situations like that.
Such a situation happened recently when Jack Clark, a former baseball player and radio personality in St. Louis, told a story of when he heard Albert Pujols's trainer tell him Pujols had taken steroids. Clark had said this over the airwaves and Pujols, one of the premier players in the game, immediately called Clark a liar and said he would take legal action. Clark was fired and Pujols sued Clark for defamation.
Since then, Clark has said Pujols should take a lie-detector test. The only defense of defamation is absolute truth. If you can prove in a court of law that what you had said was truth, then defamation is thrown out.
In public relations, this is a very tricky issue. There is, of course, a fine line between a campaign that exaggerates the truth and one that is completely fictitious.
If you run a campaign aimed at taking down your competitor, you can only use the facts available to you. In political campaigns you often see this. People will dig up dirt on their opponents and use that against them. But you never see or hear of any lawsuits because what they are using is absolute truth, even if it seems a little immoral.
Defamation is a very hard thing to prove and if proven, can cost someone a career.
References:
Cornell University Law School. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
(No. 39)
273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed and remanded. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZS.html
273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed and remanded. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0376_0254_ZS.html
Free Online Law Dictionary. Defamation. Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation.
Great post! Defamation and libel are such tricky areas of public relations. Where is the line between a stretch of the truth and outright lie? When so much of public relations relies on persuasion it can be easy for public relations professionals to lose sight of their ethics and values and go into questionable areas. It's also even more complicated when you consider most of our clients would be some form of a public figure or corporation. I think the most important takeaway for public relations professionals is to know one's own ethics and values and not just to rely on the law as a guideline, since at times, it can be incredibly vague.
ReplyDeleteIt really is a line that is very blurred. It takes a lot of tight-roping to avoid a suit in situations like that. You are right though: some people are so focused on the persuasion part that they forget their ethics and do an "at all costs" sort of campaign. I think, though, that when representing a corporation, it can be tougher to sue for libel because there might not necessarily be a figure that's so public. Good points though Katie!
DeleteYour example of Jack Clark and Albert Pujols is spot-on regarding defamation. Athletes are public figures and are subject to public scrutiny that us private figures are not. In the steroid era, and post-steroid era, athletes should know better than to use performance enhancing drugs or to surround themselves with anyone who does. In today's media, it's nearly impossible to keep anything a secret. Albert Pujols is one of the most well-known athletes in all of sports, and has already been suspected of using PEDS. Did he really think that he was just going to escape that?
ReplyDeleteIn an article from Hardball Talk on nbssports.com, they explain the grounds for the defamation suit in a little more detail. The article says,
"...the clear idea Clark was expressing is not that he was told something. It’s that what he was told was true. He was offering, through the thinnest possible cover of Pujols’ trainer, that Pujols did in fact take PEDs. Not that he was merely told it. Indeed, the actual legal claim by Pujols, by definition, covers not just knowingly telling reputation-harming lies, but spreading reputation-harming misinformation with reckless disregard for their truth. So he could very well have been told that by Pujols’ trainer. And it wouldn’t matter if (a) it was a lie; and (b) Clark was reckless in ascertaining whether or not it was true." (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/14/jack-clark-challenges-albert-pujols-to-a-lie-detector-test-doesnt-understand-how-the-law-works/)
I found this very interesting. The article explains how specific and detailed a libel or slander suit must be defined. Clark isn't being sued for saying something that he was told. He is being sued for saying something that he was told was true, and that he knew would be damaging to another person's career.
I'm interested to see how that case unfolds. I also think that the multiple lawsuits that Alex Rodriguez has filed will play a large part in libel and slander suits pertaining to public figures in the future.
I agree with you completely in regard to the case between Jack Clark and Pujols. I think this is an even bigger case, obviously, because of the enormity of the name. Pujols is one of the most beloved players in the game for fans, writers and fellow players. If it were to turn out to be true, it would turn the game on its axis and I don't believe fans would trust another player ever again. Pujols is what Alex Rodriguez was 10 years ago; the Great White Hope of baseball.
DeleteIf Jack Clark wins the case, he'd be hired by another radio station in a second; if Pujols wins, Clark won't work in media ever again. Clark knew exactly what he was doing, though. I always find it to be very interesting with stories like this. One side obviously thinks their side is right, how could there be such a gap in sides? Something isn't right here.
But you are right, defamation suits need to be air-tight in order to even have a chance at all. I'm not sure Pujols has much of a case to obtain any sort of damages, though. He hasn't lost any endorsements or any parts of his salary. He just wants to clear his name. I think they'll go through with the case, though, because of the high profile name, but even if Clark was lying, I don't think Pujols has much of a case.
Teddy - Excellent point! Reckless disregard for the truth is the "negligence" claim that non-public figures typically go after. They do not have to prove malice, just negligence in putting the false information out there.
DeleteGreta post Jared! I agree with you and actually also instantly thought of the Pujols case as I was just reading up on it recently. When it comes to certain areas of PR I think that defamation and libel has the most inconclusive rules. It is all about who holds the power and unfortunately this law does not fall in favor of those who do. If I wanted to I could stand on the street with a sign that says "Robert Pujols takes steroids" and no one would do anything about it because frankly, who the hell am I? But because Jack Clark, a famous, renownded radio personality said it it cost him his job. I know life isn't all about fairness but it sure would be a lot easier if every one had to play by the same rules. But then again who would be the one to say whats defamatory and what is not? This topic of discussion is a vicious cycle of opinion and blurred lines.
ReplyDeleteAs far as political campaigns go that is a whole other mess. I will never understand how political figures get away with their ads and other means of intentional malice. I will never condone the behavior of a political party or candidate that is defamatory or libel. That does nothing for me as far as my own personal views and sometimes I think it's almost okay because it only hurts them in the long run. I don't want you wasting 30 seconds of my life telling me what your opponent does wrong when you could have spent 30 seconds and 1 million dollars telling me what you can do right. I'm not sure when that concept will dawn on political candidates but until it does I feel like since they all do it, that is what makes it acceptable, unfortunately.
Kacey, I couldn't agree with you more. This is all because Jack Clark, too, is a public figure like Pujols and he holds weight in the community with his listener-ship. Good point made there.
DeleteGreat job Jared. I think everyone can agree that this topic of libel and defamation is certainly a hard subject because it is so hard to prove and under our First Amendment we provide people with the right to express their opinions and say what is on their mind about anyone or anything. Obviously I could not imagine a life without my freedom of speech, but his freedom does create complications when one is trying prove defamation against their character. As you shared, this has to be an intentional action to harm a person or organization's image and reputation, but more times than non many are able to simply say that they were expressing their opinions and meant no harm. How can one prove an expression of opinion was actually malicious? This week's discussion on Cox's case helps to show how some can go too far and be held accountable even if they are private citizens.
ReplyDeleteStill when it comes to political campaigns, where their goal is to highlight the attributes of their candidate and defame the reputation of their competitor, the only way they get away with this is by telling only the truth. I usually find their ads to be appalling and it is hard to believe that they can get away with them, but it is these factors that make libel and defamation so hard to prove.
Generally we all hate the idea of people making bad comments about us to others and always want our peers to see us in a positive light, but what happens when you feel someone is actively trying to destroy you, yet the information they are spreading as some merit to it? The fight to prove libel and defamation is a hard one, which is why most turn to other communication outsets to strengthen their public appearance.
Defamation is incredibly hard to prove. Sometimes it's easier to get them with negligence though because it's the carelessness that sometimes is the deciding factor in what is defamatory and what isn't. It's really hard to determine and it's hard to find the line to stay behind. It certainly isn't black and white, that's for sure.
DeleteI find it interesting that this case seems to say that a polygraph test is the only way to determine if one is lying or not. Can't and shouldn't the player be tested for steroids? Or what about third party knowledge? Even so, if neither one is willing to take the polygraph, then that opens up the concern more. Defamation is only defamation if it is not true. So if Clark is telling the truth, shouldn't he want to take a test to prove that he wasn't lying? And vice versa. If I was trying to clear my name, I'd try everything in my power to ensure that it happened.
ReplyDeleteHere is another example of defamation. In this case, Syracuse University's head basketball coach Jim Boeheim was sued for defamation of two men. Boeheim called them liars because of their allegations of sexual assault by a former coach Bernie Fine. NY Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit saying that Boeheim was stating an opinion and that he was defending his friend and colleague Fine. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-syracuse-boeheim-idUSBRE99G1EA20131017
So now I am confused at what determines an opinion from a defamation? If Clark were to come back and say that he was just stating an opinion, would that mean that even if he was lying he couldn't be charged with defamation? I think that ruling of opinion gives people an easy out rather than being held accountable for what they say.
Great point relating the Jim Boeheim-Bernie Fine Syracuse suit. I think Pujols, too, should just take the polygraph test, what does he have to lose if he isn't lying? Although there are certianly ways around the test. Clark heard it from someone else so he is stating it as fact. He's trying to bring Pujols down with the rest of the cheaters, but it will be hard for the courts to rule in Pujols' favor because he hasn't lost anything.
DeleteGreat job everyone for your very thorough posts on this topic. Jared, good job summarizing the key points and for bringing in the steroid case as a more current example. Be careful, however, when you say that "absolute truth is the only defense for defamation." Remember that it is the person bringing the libel suit that has to prove that the statement was false -- the defense does NOT have to prove it was true. (and in the case of the media, it doesn't even have to be true -- only that the media took strong actions to verify its truth and that it did not act with malice with it published the statement. (That is why Dan Rather won in the first libel suit mentioned in the presentation for this module.)
ReplyDeleteI’m actually not surprised by slander suits. People say things in the heat of a moment without editing and once it’s out, they’re responsible for it; however, you’d think there would be fewer libel suits, because people actually have the chance to wait a day, edit their words, or have someone else read them to make sure they aren’t so injurious as to necessitate a defamation suit from the receiving party. What surprises me most, perhaps, is that there are defamation (specifically libel) suits in public relations at all. You would think that since most corporations/organizations/agencies have whole staffs of people such as general counsel, VPs/Directors of PR, CEOs, etc., that someone would have seen a campaign message before it was publicized, and made the level-headed call to revise it. I know that if the PR VP or Director has the final say, others still review it (primarily legal, for obvious reasons, which is why I’m perplexed why anyone would even mount a defamatory campaign against a person or another organization) and someone along the way has to be able to say that it’s not only ineffective, but offensive and potentially damaging and could lead to a lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteI looked this practice up on the internet and was able to find a case in which Iowa Realty was operating (in Iowa) and Keller Williams had tried unsuccessfully to lure Iowa Realty realtors to their employ after opening offices in Iowa and, in fact, had been accused in the lawsuit (by Iowa Realty) of using misleading claims to try to lure them. With bad blood already existing between the two agencies, Iowa Realty rejected the practice of sharing profits 50-50 with Keller Williams when they sold a house that was listed with Iowa Realty. Keller Williams initially filed a lawsuit, claiming unfair competition, but later dropped the suit. Now (and this is a current suit), Iowa Realty has filed suit against Keller Williams, claiming they have engaged in a PR campaign aimed at damaging the reputation of Iowa Realty.
What I find so surprising is that Keller Williams, a nation-wide company, would engage in such negative business practices if, in fact, they did because 1) they have a reputation to uphold and 2) do they really need the resources of Iowa Realty when they have the money and backing to hire their own Iowa realtors. It just confounds me that large corporations would ever take the low road, but I suppose it happens all the time.
The problem is people can sue for anything and they can sue for defamation under any pretense they want, whether false or not. Now, whether or not it gets through to court is a different story. If a judge doesn't see the case having any merit he can throw it out. But like you said, it is heat of the moment and sometimes that results in a "competitive edge" with some of these words being put out there.
Delete