|
So
You think someone is Slandering you or committing libel or some
sort of Defamation against you on the Internet? With the
Internet everyone seems to be a publisher and now with the wide
spread use of Web Blogs,
everyone can be a publisher and people are publishing,
all sorts of things, at an un-heard of rate. With so many
people publishing so much using web blogs and even some using a
new form of online
publishing, which may be actual Slander,
since this new form of publishing is actually spoken word and
not written, people all over the world are actively involved in
what is now commonly referred to as: Pod
Casting, which is the recording
of MP3's, and then publishing those MP3's onto a web blog
for the entire world to download and listen to, the chances of
anyone involved in business or other disputes being slandered or
libeled online is hitting and unprecedented rate.
After
all, anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything. The
real question is if what is being said about you is an opinion
or protected speech?
The
best thing to do is consider how damaging the statements are and
decide whether you MUST be vindicated or not...much of the time
you can get the statements removed from the Internet simply by
threatening a lawsuit and sometimes you may have to file a
lawsuit or strike back to make the other party understand their
behavior MUST stop!
We
encourage you to write to us and tell us your story, we occasionally
will post stories and allow attorneys to follow up with
responses therefore it is worth your time and while to write to
us:
Please
fill out our contact form found at: Contact
Net Slander ~ Click Here ~
Defamation
is defined as a false statement communicated to another person
that damages your reputation by exposing you to hatred,
contempt, or ridicule from other people. Libel is communicating
a defamatory statement by writing or picture. Slander is
defamation by oral or spoken communication.
If such words were written or spoken of you, you are not defamed
if the words were true. Truth is a complete defense to
defamation. Even if your reputation is damaged by a defamatory
communication, you cannot recover if the communication was true.
There
are a number of other defenses to the charge of defamation. Most
notable is the defense of privilege. A person may have spoken or
written the words about you in a privileged way, that is, the
law allows certain people to say certain things in certain
places without fear of being charged with defamation. For
example, public officials, such as city council members,
performing their official duties may be protected by the
privilege, as are people making statements in judicial or
legislative proceedings. Certain other communications may be
privileged, but the rules are too complex and too many to be
stated in the short length of this message. An attorney can help
you with your particular case.
If
you have been defamed by a newspaper, magazine, motion picture
or radio or television broadcast, you must demand a retraction
in order to collect all of your damages. There are special rules
and time periods to be followed when you demand the retraction.
For example, the retraction must be requested within 20 days
from the date you learn of the publication. If the newspaper,
television or radio station retracts the defamatory statement,
you may still sue, but you may collect only the amount of money
you actually lost.
You must begin your lawsuit within one year of the time of the
defamatory statement. If you do not do so, the statute of
limitations will prevent you from beginning the case later.
A
defamation case is a particularly difficult kind of lawsuit to
win. Courts and juries like to preserve the freedom of speech as
much as possible. It is also hard for a jury to try to put a
dollar value on the loss to your reputation.
QUESTIONS
of JURISDICTION in SLANDER CLAIMS:
Man
Suing for Internet Slander
Man
Suing for Internet Slander Finding Law Uncertain
RALEIGH, N.C. -- A man suing the creator of a Web site that
accuses him of being a homosexual has found himself at the
center of a debate over which courts have jurisdicition.
Daniel L'Hommedieu of Holly Springs has filed a suit against
Praveen Kumar of Ohio in Wake County Superior Court. A judge
has ruled that Kumar must come to North Carolina to defend
himself against charges of defamation and libel.
Kumar has asked the North Carolina Court of Appeals to review
the judge's decision. He argues that he has never visited
North Carolina and isn't subject to its courts. He also says
L'Hommedieu has no proof that the site targeted anyone in
North Carolina or that anyone in the state saw the site.
The question of jurisdiction has been raised before federal
and state courts across the country. It may ultimately be
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
SLANDER
IN THE NEWS:
Stung by cyberspace allegations of racism,
Tommy Hilfiger launches e-mail campaign to assure minority
customers
Web posted March 27, 1997
Associated Press
NEW YORK - Stung by
baseless cyberspace allegations of racism, fashion designer
Tommy Hilfiger has launched an e-mail campaign to assure
minorities on the Internet that they remain valued customers.
In a six-paragraph memo posted on sites with
anti-Hilfiger rants, the internationally known designer shoots
down an ``ugly rumor'' that he made racist remarks about
Asians and AfricanAmericans.
The stories have proliferated in cyberspace
since at least early November, although a Hilfiger spokeswoman
says the company only became aware of the problem last week.
They are tracking down the offending Internet sites and
responding.
``The facts are simple and incontrovertible,''
their e-mail says. ``Tommy Hilfiger did not make the alleged
inappropriate racial comments. ... Whether these rumors are
part of a misunderstanding or a deliberate act of malice, they
have absolutely no basis in fact.''
The message comes in response to postings
detailing a pair of fictitious television appearances. The
first tale asserted that Mr. Hilfiger appeared on CNN's
``Style with Elsa Klensch'' and said that Asians did not look
good in his clothes.
The second claimed that Mr. Hilfiger appeared
on ``Oprah'' and made similar comments about
African-Americans. In this version, Ms. Winfrey then threw him
off the show.
The truth: Neither event ever took place.
Spokeswomen for both shows says neither CNN's Ms. Klensch nor
the Emmy-winning Ms. Winfrey has ever even met the 45-year-old
designer, let alone have him on the shows.
His attackers are nameless and faceless, yet
able to reach a potential audience of millions. The Hilfiger
postings are often inflammatory rants rife with profanity.
``Tommy Hilfiger is a proven racist
(expletive),'' reads a typical missive. ``Why don't you wear a
hood?''
Once notified, Mr. Hilfiger quickly took
action against the falsehoods, said spokeswoman Catherine
Fisher. The phony charges could have threatened the popularity
of his clothing among the hip-hop crowd; rappers Snoop Doggy
Dogg and Sadat X of Grand Nubian are among Mr. Hilfiger's
fans.
``We're doing everything we can to set this
straight,'' Ms. Fisher said Wednesday. The company has seen no
evidence of a sales decline despite posted calls for a
boycott, she said. The company's most recent quarterly report
showed $178.9 million in revenue, with earnings up 32 percent.
|
