SPLC Legal Brief Libel is the publication - in words, photos, pictures or
symbols - of false statements of fact that harm another's reputation.
(Libel is a form of defamation. Slander is the spoken version
of defamation.) Reprinting or re-broadcasting a libelous statement
made by someone else (such as a quote or a letter to the editor)
can also subject a publication to a libel lawsuit. However, if
a statement is true, it cannot be the basis of a successful libel
claim. There are four elements a person must establish in order to
prove he or she has been defamed: (1) Publication, (2)
Identification, (3) Harm and (4) Fault.
Each of the four elements must be proven. For
example, even if a story you have written meets the publication,
harm and fault elements, a libel claim will still fail if you
have not identified the claimant. I. Publication II. Identification A statement "identifies" a person if it is shown
that it is "of and concerning" that person. Disguising a Subject's Identity Group Libel Corporation or Entity Libel III. Harm A statement is harmful if it seriously shames, ridicules,
disgraces or injures a person's reputation or causes others to
do so. Statements that are mildly embarrassing or merely confusing
or inacurate will not meet the "harm" test. The following are examples of "Red Flag" statements
that could cause significant harm to a person's reputation; extra
caution is advised: IV. Fault In order to be "at fault" in publishing a statement,
the person suing must prove that the reporter either did something
they should not have done or that they failed to do something
that they should have done. If the reporter did everything a
"reasonable reporter" should have done to verify the
information in his or her story before publishing it - for example,
talked to all sides, obtained and read all relevant documents,
took accurate notes, etc. - the reporter is not legally "at
fault." People suing for libel who are either public officials or
public figures will often have to prove a higher level of fault
than an ordinary person. The Public Official/Public Figure Standard New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S.
254 (1964). Who is a Public Official? Who is a Public Figure? There are two categories: Standard for Private Persons (everyone
else) In most states, a private person need only prove that a reporter
was negligent, that is, that the reporter made a mistake - perhaps
an innocent one - that a "reasonable" reporter should
not have made. SPLC HINT: Don't get bogged down trying to
decide whether your subject is a public or private figure. That
is a game best left to media lawyers. As a practical matter,
it is safest to assume that every one of your subjects is a private
person and that you will be held to the lowest fault standard
if you publish inaccurate information. Remember, if you do everything
a reasonable reporter would do for every story that you publish
you will never be successfully sued for libel. DEFENSES TO LIBEL CLAIMS If a libel plaintiff proves each of the four PIHF elements,
the burden then shifts to the publication to offer one of the
following defenses: (1) Consent A person who consents to the media's use of a libelous statement
about him cannot later sue if the statement does, in fact, injure
his or her reputation. Note that special issues can arise when
dealing with a younger person's ability to provide valid consent.
(See discussion at: SPLC
Legal Brief: Invasion of Privacy.) (2) Truth Truth, while it must still be proven, is an absolute defense
to libel. In many cases involving media defendants the burden
is actually on the person suing - not on the publication - to
prove the falsity of specific statements. (3) Privilege Subject to several requirements, which may vary by state,
the media is protected from liability when they publish fair
and accurate accounts of official public proceedings
and reports even if the information reported later turns out
to be false. For example, if a police report states that "Jack
Smith was arrested" and a newspaper accurately reports the
information, the newspaper will not be held liable even if it
is later revealed that police actually arrested Jack Brown
and officers made a mistake when they wrote down his name. To
qualify for the privilege: Other privileges exist, but vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. (4) Opinion Versus Fact Statements of pure opinion cannot be libelous. However, simply
leading off an article with "In my opinion...", publishing
something on the opinion page or using the word "alleged"
provides no automatic protection from a libel charge. The test
is whether the expression is capable of being proven true or
false. Pure opinions, by their very nature, cannot be proven
true or false. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S.
1 (1990) Satire and Cartoons
Libel Law
© 2001 Student Press Law Center
View Foot Notes
THE PIHF CHECKLIST
Where you successfully omit or alter a subject's identity,
they cannot successfully sue you for libel. Care should be taken
that: (1) the subject's identity has been disguised enough so
that no one can reasonably make an identification and (2) the
disguised subject does not resemble some third party who would
then have cause for complaint. Every story should clearly state
what facts have been altered.
Individuals can be defamed; groups of people cannot
be. The key question is whether a statement about a group can
reasonably be interpreted to refer to a specific individual in
the group. While there is no hard rule, several courts have indicated
that individual members of a group larger than 25 will have a
difficult time proving that they have suffered individual harm.
On the other hand, individuals in a smaller group may be able
to claim that their reputation has been damaged. For example,
the generic statement, "the tennis team is being investigated
for substance abuse" could subject a publication
to a libel suit if the team consists of just 12 members.
Corporations and other business entities, including
private schools and religious organizations, can be defamed.
Like individuals, their reputations affect their ability to conduct
their affairs in a community.
In order for a public official or a public figure to prove defamation,
they must prove actual malice. Actual malice requires that the
person suing prove that the challenged statement was published
by those who either knew it was false or were reckless in verifying
its accuracy.
The Supreme Court has said that a public official is one
who, at the very least, has or appears to the public to have,
a substantial responsibility for or control over governmental
affairs.
(1) General Purpose Public Figure: a "celebrity," whose
pervasive fame or notoriety has made his or her name a "household
word."
(2) Limited Purpose Public Figure: someone who has voluntarily
assumed a leading role in a particular public controversy.
If a statement cannot reasonably be interpreted by readers
to be one of express or implied fact, it cannot be libelous.
In Walko v. Kean College of New Jersey, 561 A.2d 680
(N.J. Super.L. 1988) a case involving an ad that associated
a college assistant dean with a telephone sex service, the court
stated that "A parody or spoof that no reasonable person
would read as a factual statement, or as anything other than
a joke - albeit a bad joke - cannot be actionable as a defamation."
Back to top
< Return to Previous Page