Skip to main content

Slander Law Limitations

One aspect of slander law that is especially interesting is the aspect of slandering someone with an already irreparably tarnished reputation. The book cites a hypothetical example where the town drunk is mistakenly seen staggering along the sidewalk and false gossip defaming him spreads through the town. However, since his reputation already hinges on being publicly drunk, a false statement defaming him on those grounds cannot be considered to be damaging to his reputation (Tedford 82). There are, however, significant limitations to this rule that complicate the makeup of a slandered party's reputation. In an article titled "Libel and Slander. Damages. Evidence of Prior Privileged Publications of the Same Defamatory Charges Is Not Admissible in Mitigation of Damages. Dingle v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd." from the Harvard Law Review in 1962, an early precedent in defamation cases is discussed, specifically, that prior legal action "of the same defamatory manner" cannot be introduced as evidence to prove a tarnished reputation (1229). The review describes this precedent as unsound, and I agree. Though it is time consuming to review past cases to ensure that they will not prove prejudicial if they were judged false, the expense is worth the possibility of proving a pattern of injurious behavior that has damaged many different people. The reputations of people are built on their interactions with other people, and if describing those actions is prejudicial, it's probably for a reason.


“Libel and Slander. Damages. Evidence of Prior Privileged Publications of the Same Defamatory Charges Is Not Admissible in Mitigation of Damages. Dingle v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. (C. A. 1961).” Harvard Law Review, vol. 75, no. 6, 1962, pp. 1228–1230. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1338485.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 28, 2017 at 12:47 AM

    I really like how you point out that "the reputations of people are built on their interactions with other people...". This is a very interesting point when trying to define what constitutes and is protected under the First Amendment, specifically defamation. I wonder though, what about those people who are working to change their reputation, or what could be modernized in this case as "image" or "identity," from negative to something more positive than it has been in the past?

    For example, a drug addict who is going through rehab and falls off the wagon a few times and relapses. Lets say that person relapses, but after continues to try and positively change their life and reputation through rehab and detox, eventually succeeding to stay clean. Two years later, once the drug addict has finally created a better, clean life, and moved away from the old one, someone from their past resurfaces and slanders the former drug addicts name to their new community where their reputation is completely different from where they were before. If this situation was tried for defamation, would the person's past really be able to prove anything about their behavior now? Probably not.

    What I am getting at is that we cannot always take into account what someone's past is when ruling on something this serious, because they could be a completely different person than what some people used to know their reputation as. Although, I do think you make a good point that we are constantly being judged by what we do and how we act, which can follow us for our entire lives.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more