What is the most you can sue for defamation?
A judge or jury can award a victorious defamation plaintiff millions for really bad cases, or $1 in compensatory damages if they find that the injury was nominal. However, usually, nominal damages will not be awarded unless the plaintiff’s case is incredibly petty, or punitive damages can also be awarded.
Who is suing for defamation?
Defamation is a civil wrong, like other personal injuries, consisting of statements that injure someone else’s reputation. When the statements are written, they are considered “libel,” while spoken defamation is “slander.” A person who is defamed can sue the person who said or wrote the defamatory statements. However, in general, defamation law is designed with First Amendment rights and the importance of free speech and political or social disagreement in mind. Not every insult or false statement is actionable.
Libel = written defamatory statements
Slander = spoken defamatory statements
Each state has its own defamation laws. In general, a plaintiff suing for defamation will have to show the statement was published, false, harmful to him or her, and not privileged. “Publication” can mean that words were spoken to another person, written words were transmitted to someone else, or that pictures or gestures were shared with another person. A private entry in a journal is not considered published.
The statement must be false to be considered defamation. Truth is a sound defense to defamation. An unflattering opinion will not be considered defamation because it is not true or false from an objective standpoint. Thus, for example, an opinion on an online review site that a restaurant’s food is “boring” or “pedestrian” without any false statements of fact to support it is not defamation. However, if the writer of the review lied in saying that there were bits of glass in her food, the review would be actionable as defamation.
The statement must cause actual harm, not just hurt feelings. If you are suing for defamation, you will have to be prepared to show how the defamatory statement hurt your reputation. For example, someone who loses a job because of false statements about his or her experience meets this element. Similarly, if your wife files for a divorce and your children shun you because another person falsely claims to have had an affair with you, these are injuries caused by a false statement.
There are limited circumstances in which you cannot prevail in a defamation lawsuit even though the defendant has made a false statement that damaged you. For example, lawmakers are not liable when they make false statements in the legislative chamber. Similarly, a witness who perjures him or herself and hurts your reputation cannot be sued for defamation, although he or she can be criminally prosecuted for perjury.
A defendant may be liable for defamation if:
In general, you are more restricted in your ability to bring a defamation suit if you are a public figure, such as a lawmaker, a politician, or a movie star. If you are an influential public figure about whom a damaging statement was made, you must prove not only the above elements of defamation, but also that the defendant—the person who made the defamatory statements—acted with actual malice.
If you have criticized a public figure or celebrity, either in a blog or in a public set.
Is slander defamation?
The terms libel, slander, and defamation are frequently confused with each other. They are all similar in that they all fall into the same general area of law that concerns false statements which harm a person’s reputation. This general area of law is called defamation law.
Libel and slander are types of defamatory statements. Libel is a defamatory statement that is written. Slander is a defamatory statement that is oral.
Historically, the distinction between libel and slander was significant and had real-world implications regarding how a case was litigated including the elements that had to be proven and who had the burden of proof. Illinois courts have changed their approach, however, as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in Bryson v. News America Publication, Inc.:
At common law, libel and slander were analyzed under different sets of standards, with libel recognized as the more serious wrong. Illinois law evolved, however, and rejected this bifurcated approach in favor of a single set of rules for slander and libel. Libel and slander are now treated alike and the same rules apply to a defamatory statement regardless of whether the statement is written or oral.
The tort of defamation (sometimes referred to as defamation of character) can be divided into claims involving two distinct types of statements: defamatory per se statements and defamatory per quod statements.
Statements that are defamatory per se (sometimes referred to generically by courts as libel per se) are so obviously and naturally harmful to one’s reputation on their face that proof of injury is not required. Illinois law recognizes five types of statements that are considered defamatory per se:
- Statements imputing the commission of a criminal offense
- Statements imputing infection with a loathsome communicable disease
- Statements imputing an inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of office or employment
- Statements prejudicing a particular individual in his or her profession or trade
- Statements that accuse an unmarried individual of unchastity
Importantly, a statement can only be considered defamatory per se if the harmful effect is apparent on the face of the statement itself. If extrinsic facts or additional information about the person being defamed is required to understand the harmful effect of the statement, then it cannot be defamatory per se. That is not to say the statement is not defamatory if extrinsic facts are required; it just cannot be defamatory per se.
If a defamatory statement does not fall into one of the defamatory per se categories or requires extrinsic facts, then it is considered defamatory per quod. Unlike in cases involving defamation per se, defamation per quod claims require the plaintiff to allege and prove special damages (also called “special harm” by some courts).
The term “special damages” or “special harm” is a legal term of art in defamation law that means the loss of something with actual economic or pecuniary value. In other words, a plaintiff alleging defamation per quod must be able to show specifically how the defamation caused a specific, quantifiable loss of money such as the commission from a lost sale or the salary from a lost job.
Defamation law continues to change and evolve. Defamation attorneys must have extensive knowledge of First Amendment and other aspects of defamation law to effectively represent their clients.
Is defamation a crime in California?
California defamation law defines defamation of character as the publishing of a false statement to a third party that results in harm to another person’s reputation and good standing. The heart of a valid California defamation claim hinges on whether the published statement caused damage to another’s reputation.
The Golden State is a hotbed for high-profile defamation lawsuits, as many California residents find themselves at the center of media coverage, given the state’s popularity with celebrities and public figures. For this reason, California’s defamation laws are full of extensive legal precedent and often a guiding source for other defamation cases across the country.
At Minc Law, we have represented victims of defamation in 5 countries and 26 states, including California. Our experience representing over 2,500 clients has made us intimately familiar with California’s defamation statutes, defenses, and case law.
In this guide to California defamation law, we will review California’s definition of libel, slander, and defamation. We will also discuss how to prove the elements of defamation in California, with examples from actual cases. Then, we will cover common defenses to California defamation claims.
Defamation, also referred to as ‘defamation of character’, is the umbrella term for the publication of a false statement that damages another person or entity’s reputation. Defamation is considered an umbrella term because it encompasses two different types of defamation: libel and slander. Defamation that is written or published in a tangible medium is considered libel, while defamation expressed orally is slander.
To remember the difference between libel and slander, keep in mind that both spoken and slander start with the letter ‘S’.
In Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, the California Court of Appeals defined defamation as a statement “which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Mattel, Inc. v. Luce, No. B143260, 2001 WL 1589175, at *8 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2001), as modified (Jan. 8, 2002) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 45).
A California case that illustrates this standard of defamation in action is Del Junco v. Hufnagel. In Del Junco, the defendant falsely alleged that the plaintiff lacked the requisite medical training to perform surgery. In the court’s eyes, this was enough to constitute not only defamation but defamation per se.
Defamation per se (commonly referred to as libel per se or slander per se) occurs when a statement is so inherently damaging to one’s reputation, that the plaintiff need not prove that they suffered actual damages as a result of the statement.
In California, statements that “tend to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, and to induce an evil opinion of him in the minds of right-thinking persons and deprive him of their friendly intercourse or society” may be consid
Has anyone ever won a defamation lawsuit?
Michael Mann, a professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, has been awarded more the $1 million in damages after a trial in D.C. court.
Michael Mann, among the world’s most renowned climate scientists, won a defamation case in D.C. Superior Court against two conservative writers. Mann, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, had sued Rand Simberg, a policy analyst, and Mark Steyn, a right-wing author, for online posts published over a decade ago, respectively, by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review.
Mann is partly responsible for one of the most consequential graphs in climate science, one that helped make the steep rise in global average temperatures from fossil fuel use understandable to a wide audience.
The writers rejected Mann’s findings. In his online post, Steyn had called Mann’s work “fraudulent.” Simberg called Mann, who formerly worked at Penn State, the “Sandusky of climate science” — a reference to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach and convicted child sex abuser. Simberg wrote that Mann had “molested and tortured data.”
After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages.
Mann did not respond to requests for comment. But in a statement posted to the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”
Simberg’s attorney sent an email that cast the decision as a victory for him. In an email, Steyn’s manager Melissa Howes said, “We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue. And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages.”
Mann’s trial comes at a time of increasing attacks on climate scientists, says Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, who notes that her fund helps more scientists each year than the year before.
“I don’t think there’s been anything like it. There’s never been a case like this,” says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit. “No one has ever taken the climate deniers to court like this.”
Davies says while this ruling may not…
Why is it so hard to win a defamation case?
Truth and Privilege Defenses to Defamation
Defamation lawsuits are not easy to win because the plaintiff must both prove the difficult elements of his or her case and avoid the many defenses to defamation. This article discusses some of the standard defenses to defamation, including truth and privilege.
Truth is a Defense
Truth, or substantial truth, is a complete defense to a claim of defamation. The only real issue is who has the burden of proving what is true.
Although the falsity of an alleged defamatory statement must be proven by the plaintiff as a part of the defamatory statement element of the plaintiff’s case, in most states, a defendant’s contention that the statement was true is deemed to be an affirmative defense. (An affirmative defense is a defense that must be pleaded and proved by the person responding to a claim.) In Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that, while truth is a defense, it is not always an affirmative defense. The court said that, where a statement by a media defendant involved a matter of “public concern,” the plaintiff had to bear the burden of proving that the statement was false. Therefore, a media defendant cannot be required to prove the truth of a statement involving a matter of public concern.
Privilege
Another complete defense to a claim of defamation is privilege. The two types of privilege are absolute privilege and qualified privilege. An absolute privilege is a privilege that always applies. A qualified privilege is a privilege that applies only if the defendant has not acted with actual malice.
There is an absolute privilege for statements made in or having some relation to judicial or judicial-like proceedings. There is an absolute privilege for statements made in legislative proceedings. There is an absolute privilege for certain government officials acting in the course of their employment, including federal officials and high-ranking state officials. There is an absolute privilege for any compelled publication or broadcast.
There is a qualified privilege for statements published in a reasonable manner for which there is a public interest (e.g., the news) or for which there is a private interest of such importance to the public that it is protected by public policy (e.g., a job reference). In essence, the news media can inaccurately report newsworthy events, especially live events and breaking news, as long as it does so without actual malice.
Retraction
A related incomplete defense is retraction. A retraction is a full and formal withdrawal of a prior statement. Where a defendant is held liable despite making a retraction, the retraction usually mitigates or eliminates the plaintiff’s damages. In essence, the making of a retraction suggests that the subject matter of the prior statement has been more thoroughly examined and found not to be true. As the result of a retraction, the plaintiff’s deserved good reputation, instead of being harmed, may actually be enhanc.
What is the punishment for defamation of character in the UK?
An Act to amend the Law respecting defamatory Words and Libel.[24th August 1843]
FOR the better Protection of private Character, and for more effectually securing the Liberty of the Press, and for better preventing Abuses in exercising the said Liberty,
be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same,
That in any Action for Defamation it shall be lawful for the Defendant (after Notice in Writing of his Intention so to do, duly given to the Plaintiff at the Time of filing or delivering the Plea in such Action,) to give in Evidence, in mitigation of Damages, that he made or offered an Apology to the Plaintiff for such Defamation before the Commencement of the Action, or as soon afterwards as he had an Opportunity of doing so, in case the Action shall have been commenced before there was an Opportunity of making or offering such Apology.
And be it enacted, That in an Action for a Libel contained in any public Newspaper or other periodical Publication it shall be competent to the Defendant to plead that such Libel was inserted in such Newspaper or other periodical Publication without actual Malice, and without gross Negligence, and that before the Commencement of the Action, or at the earliest Opportunity afterwards, he inserted in such Newspaper or other periodical Publication a full Apology for the said Libel, or, if the Newspaper or periodical Publication in which the said Libel appeared should be ordinarily published at Intervals exceeding One Week, had offered to publish the said Apology in any Newspaper or periodical Publication to be selected by the Plaintiff in such Action ; and that every such Defendant shall upon filing such Plea be at liberty to pay into Court a Sum of Money by way of Amends for the Injury sustained by the Publication of such Libel, and such Payment into Court shall be of the same Effect and be available in the same Manner and to the same Extent, and be subject to the same Rules and Regulations as to Payment of Costs and the Form of Pleading, except so far as regards the pleading of the additional Facts herein-before required to be pleaded by” such Defendant, as if Actions for Libel had not been excepted from the personal Actions in which it is lawful to pay Money into Court under an [3 & 4 W. 4. c. 42.] Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the Fourth Year of His late Majesty, intituled An Act for the further Amendment of the Law, and the better Advancement of Justice ; and that to such Plea to such Action it shall be competent to the Plaintiff to reply generally, denying the whole of such Plea.
And be it enacted, That if any Person shall publish or threaten to publish any Libel upon any other Person, or shall directly or indirectly threaten to print or publish, or shall directly or indirectly propose to abstain from printing or publishing, or shall direc”.
What is the difference between slander and libel?
The terms libel, slander, and defamation are frequently confused with each other. They are all similar in that they all fall into the same general area of law that concerns false statements which harm a person’s reputation. This general area of law is called defamation law. Libel and slander are types of defamatory statements. Libel is a defamatory statement that is written. Slander is a defamatory statement that is oral.
Historically, the distinction between libel and slander was significant and had real-world implications regarding how a case was litigated including the elements that had to be proven and who had the burden of proof. Illinois courts have changed their approach, however, as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in Bryson v. News America Publication, Inc.:
At common law, libel and slander were analyzed under different sets of standards, with libel recognized as the more serious wrong. Illinois law evolved, however, and rejected this bifurcated approach in favor of a single set of rules for slander and libel. Libel and slander are now treated alike and the same rules apply to a defamatory statement regardless of whether the statement is written or oral.
The tort of defamation (sometimes referred to as defamation of character) can be divided into claims involving two distinct types of statements: defamatory per se statements and defamatory per quod statements. Statements that are defamatory per se (sometimes referred to generically by courts as libel per se) are so obviously and naturally harmful to one’s reputation on their face that proof of injury is not required. Illinois law recognizes five types of statements that are considered defamatory per se:
- …
- …
- …
- …
- …
Importantly, a statement can only be considered defamatory per se if the harmful effect is apparent on the face of the statement itself. If extrinsic facts or additional information about the person being defamed is required to understand the harmful effect of the statement, then it cannot be defamatory per se. That is not to say the statement is not defamatory if extrinsic facts are required; it just cannot be defamatory per se.
If a defamatory statement does not fall into one of the defamatory per se categories or requires extrinsic facts, then it is considered defamatory per quod. Unlike in cases involving defamation per se, defamation per quod claims require the plaintiff to allege and prove special damages (also called “special harm” by some courts). The term “special damages” or “special harm” is a legal term of art in defamation law that means the loss of something with actual economic or pecuniary value. In other words, a plaintiff alleging defamation per quod must be able to show specifically how the defamation caused a specific, quantifiable loss of money such as the commission from a lost sale or the salary from a lost job.
Defamation law continues to change and evolve. Defamation attorneys must have extensive knowledge of First Amendment and other aspects of defamation law to ef