Defamation is a false statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published or spoken with intent to harm the other party. In the book it stated that "people have the right to protect their reputation against slanderous remarks that destroy their standing in the community". (Tedford & Herbeck, 78) That is pretty straightforward and an easy concept to understand and agree with. So before reading this chapter I thought that it would be a pretty black and white concept. However later in the chapter an interesting question was raised - what if the reputation within the community is already low? I thought that this was an interesting concept because although you would be committing a similar act with the same intent it is not largely not applicable to those who already have damaged reputations. Although this makes sense I cannot help but feel that this is a bit morally wrong. Is it like stealing being permissible as long as you do it from certain stores. Just as you can get away with defamation as long as it is only people who have a lower standing in society already.
In a case discussed by the New York Times, Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, published an advertisement in his magazine that accused Rev. Jerry Falwell of drunkenness and incest. This advertisement received so much attention and concern from readers that Mr. Falwell received $800,000 in donations to help aid him in his battle against his alleged porn addiction. However Flynt was found not guilty of defamation because the claims "were too outrageous to be believed" but was ordered to pay Falwell $200,000 in emotional and punitive damages. I thought this outcome was interesting because as a Reverend, the type of accusations that were made by Flynt could be very damaging to his image and reputation as a worker within the Church. It seemed a bit backwards to me that Flynt was ordered to pay for damages but the damages did not meet the burden of defamation.
Overall "defamation" and the legal burden that people have to meet to be found guilty does not align with my initial thoughts regarding the concept. It is interesting to me how you can commit what would be considered "defamation" by the general public i.e. (saying things that are untrue with intent to harm the reputation) but certain scenarios such as targeting somebody already in low standing or making outrageous claims that are found to be unbelievable - you are not considered to actually participating in defamation. It is kind of unsettling to me that defamation rests on the damages to reputation rather than the content of the message or damages to the business/emotional state of the person themselves.
“Flynt Cleared of Libel but Must Pay $200,000.” New York Times, 9 Dec. 1984. Web, 25 Sep. 2017.http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/09/us/flynt-cleared-of-libel-but-must-pay-200000.html?mcubz=0
In a case discussed by the New York Times, Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, published an advertisement in his magazine that accused Rev. Jerry Falwell of drunkenness and incest. This advertisement received so much attention and concern from readers that Mr. Falwell received $800,000 in donations to help aid him in his battle against his alleged porn addiction. However Flynt was found not guilty of defamation because the claims "were too outrageous to be believed" but was ordered to pay Falwell $200,000 in emotional and punitive damages. I thought this outcome was interesting because as a Reverend, the type of accusations that were made by Flynt could be very damaging to his image and reputation as a worker within the Church. It seemed a bit backwards to me that Flynt was ordered to pay for damages but the damages did not meet the burden of defamation.
Overall "defamation" and the legal burden that people have to meet to be found guilty does not align with my initial thoughts regarding the concept. It is interesting to me how you can commit what would be considered "defamation" by the general public i.e. (saying things that are untrue with intent to harm the reputation) but certain scenarios such as targeting somebody already in low standing or making outrageous claims that are found to be unbelievable - you are not considered to actually participating in defamation. It is kind of unsettling to me that defamation rests on the damages to reputation rather than the content of the message or damages to the business/emotional state of the person themselves.
“Flynt Cleared of Libel but Must Pay $200,000.” New York Times, 9 Dec. 1984. Web, 25 Sep. 2017.http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/09/us/flynt-cleared-of-libel-but-must-pay-200000.html?mcubz=0
I am interested in the question you posed, “what if the reputation within the community is already low?” It is an interesting concept to focus on because often times reputations are already low in a community. Once a reputation has already been tarnished is it considered agreeing with the community collectively? For example, when Bill Cosby was first accused of druging and raping women the black community didn’t want to believe it until more victims came forth. I remember hearing discussions about how the media is trying to tarnish his reputation. But as soon as the majority of the community was on the same page no new evidence brought forth was able to reverse the damage that had already been done. I do agree with once someones reputation is a significantly low point it is hard to accuse someone of slander or defamation even when there was malice behind their statement.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are different standards for Reverends and average people. Accusations against someone in a position of the church can cause more damage and are also difficult to prove. Defamation often back fire, as we discussed in class on Tuesday