Analysis of "This is PR..." (part 21)

PR and the Law (part 3)

by:

Charles Lamson

Defamation, Libel and Slander

There are two kinds of libel: civil and criminal. Libel (written or otherwise public defamation) was originally confined to statements made in the print media. However, now it applies to statements made in the broadcast media as well. The courts have interpreted libel as a more serious offense than slander (spoken defamation).

Civil Libel

Civil libel is defined as tortious (non-criminal) defamation of character by malicious publication tending to tarnish the reputation of a living person so as to expose him or her to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. It also means injuring the person in his o her trade or profession. Use of alleged or other subtle qualifications offers no protection. Civil libel law encompasses all forms of defamatory communication about a person's  character including headlines, taglines and all artwork, photography, and cartoons). It also applies to errors that may result in libel such as incorrect initials or the wrong name with the wrong photo If the defamation occurs in an accurately quoted statement that contains a libelous statement, the person or medium publishing the statement may still be held responsible ("This is PR: The Realities of Public Relations, 9th ed.," by Doug Newsom, Judy VanSlyke Turk, Dean Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

In libel cases involving public officials and public figures, "actual malice" must be proved. However, do not count on plaintiffs being held to that standard proof  Definitions of all three designations - libel, malice and public figures - remains subject to individual interpretation in the courts (Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

Office memos, letters, telegrams and broadcasting scripts are subject to libel laws just as newsletters and brochures are. Anyone who takes part in the procurement, composition, and publication of libelous material shares responsibility for the libel although the original publisher is not responsible for subsequent publications by others. Even persons who bring the matter to the attention of anyone connected with possible publication are subject to being sued for libel copying and distributing libelous piece can result in additional action against the person or persons responsible in the organization (Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

Slander is spoken defamation. It does not always apply to broadcast. It does not always apply to broadcast defamation however because multiple copies of a script may have been produced. Thus, even though the copy is eventually spoken, the offending scripts constitute publication and are therefor libelous, not slanderous (Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

Criminal Libel

Criminal libel (breach of peace or treason) involves inciting to riot or some other form of violence against the government or publishing an obscenity or blasphemy (Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

Defense Against Libel Charges

1. Truth: substantial proof that is admissible in court.
2. Privilege: A fair and true report of a public official or judicial proceeding.
3. Fair comment: statements made in an honest belief that they are true; also statements with some  element of exaggeration or irony in them that nonetheless do not overstep the bounds of reasonable civility. However it is up to the jury to decide the issue of "fairness." Guidelines are (1) sufficient public interest in the subject addressed by the author, (2) Intent to serve a just cause; (3) a reasonable and supportable conclusion drawn from the reported facts (Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

A constitutional protection, if not a defense, is provided by the Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan. which involved publication by the The New York Times of a political advertisement that made various false allegations about a sheriff. The newspaper did not attempt to verify the substance of these allegations prior to publishing the ad. The Supreme Court's opinion in the case held that a public official must prove malice in a libel suit rather than some form of negligence. Trial court decides the question of "malice" but basically it involves an intent to harm. The primary significance of the The New York Times vs. Sullivan case  lies in its implication that the Supreme Court may look at libel judgments to make sure that constitutionally guaranteed freedoms have not been denied in addition because the defamatory statements in the case were contained in an advertisement. The court's decision signaled that the standard of proof it was imposing applied to commercial speech as well as to noncommercial speech  Finally the Supreme Court said it was limiting the power of all states to award libel damages for statements about public officials. In the court's opinion, actual malice was defined as either knoowledge that the libelous statement was false or a reckless disregard for whether it was true or false (Newsom, Turk, Kruckeberg; pg. 200).

A subsequent case extended this requirement to "public figures" other than government officials - that is to anyone who has put him or herself in the public areana. 

To Be Continued...

End