FG 4

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Real BigD,

Sorry to inundate you with requests for your legal opinions, but my guess is that by stating your line of work here you might be open to offereing one or two.

Let's say I publicly accused a jockey of race fixing on a internet forum with no basis of fact, only conjecture and wild conspircy theories.

Have I opened myself to a liebel or slander suit by said jockey? What is the difference between libel and slander? Would this be a civil action solely, or could there be criminal implications and possible prosicution at hand as well?

Thanks, your responses are valued and appreciated.

You're probably safe.

Libel and slander are the same thing; defamation. The only difference is how the statement is published. Slander is spoken; libel is through a fixed medium, usually written but could also be otherwise, i.e., a sign or billboard.

Unless stated as fact, what you said or wrote is not defamation. In other words, if an alleged assertion is a statement of opinion rather than fact, it's not defamation.

Now if you had done this in Kenya, you might already be dead as punishment.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You're probably safe.

Libel and slander are the same thing; defamation. The only difference is how the statement is published. Slander is spoken; libel is through a fixed medium, usually written but could also be otherwise, i.e., a sign or billboard.

Unless stated as fact, what you said or wrote is not defamation. In other words, if an alleged assertion is a statement of opinion rather than fact, it's not defamation.

Now if you had done this in Kenya, you might already be dead as punishment.

I agree with the above . . . I suspect I am not the only lawyer around here.

You can say most anything you like, as long as it is expressed as an opinion. Certainly there are no criminal consequences; without getting too deeply into it, conceivably you could be required to pay monetary damages if you made a false statement about someone and it caused them eonomic harm.

You may sleep easier if you think about this: If it came down to it. could the defamed/slandered jockey establish that he was damaged? Did anyone believe your wild theory about the race fixing claim? If so, did they, on the basis of what you said, deny the jockey mounts? Unless the jockey suffered injury to his business and/or reputation based on your statements, he/she has no viable claim for damages.

All in all, it seems highly unlikely that anything would come of this.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

I agree with the above . . . I suspect I am not the only lawyer around here.

You can say most anything you like, as long as it is expressed as an opinion. Certainly there are no criminal consequences; without getting too deeply into it, conceivably you could be required to pay monetary damages if you made a false statement about someone and it caused them eonomic harm.

You may sleep easier if you think about this: If it came down to it. could the defamed/slandered jockey establish that he was damaged? Did anyone believe your wild theory about the race fixing claim? If so, did they, on the basis of what you said, deny the jockey mounts? Unless the jockey suffered injury to his business and/or reputation based on your statements, he/she has no viable claim for damages.

All in all, it seems highly unlikely that anything would come of this.

I am no lawyer, but I also think you need to prove an "intent to do harm."

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

I am no lawyer, but I also think you need to prove an "intent to do harm."

Now that the Fair Grounds has cancelled I have more time to reply . . .

This isn't my area of practice so take all of the following for what it is worth, which probably is not much.

The question of what would have to be shown would depend on whether the jockey could be considered a public figure. If the jockey is NOT a public figure, to prevail he would have to show the following:

(1) Defamatory language;
(2) about the plaintiff;
(3) which is published; and
(4) which causes injury to reputation.

If the jockey IS considered a public figure, he would have to establish, in addition to the above, that the defendant acted with "actual malice." "Actual malice" exists where the publication was made with knowledge of the falsity of the statements or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. That is a high standard and it is difficult for a public-figure plaintiff to prevail in a defamation suit.

I don't think than an intent to cause harm is technically an element of a defamation claim.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

a public figure, he would have to establish, in addition to the above, that the defendant acted with "actual malice." "Actual malice" exists where the publication was made with knowledge of the falsity of the statements or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. That is a high standard and it is difficult for a public-figure plaintiff to prevail in a defamation suit.

I don't think than an intent to cause harm is technically an element of a defamation claim.

actual malice.. yes.. knowingly making false statements.. that's the ticket! oh yeah and the public figure thing is a big part as well. 'intent to cause harm' was my general term (a poor one at best). thanks.

Originally Posted by RealBigD

(1) Defamatory language;
(2) about the plaintiff;
(3) which is published; and
(4) which causes injury to reputation.

A classic conjunctive rule. First year of law school just paid for itself...