![]() ![]() ![]() To narrow the elements down, we’ll state right off the bat that TD’s statements were unprivileged “unprivileged” statements are those that fall outside of the narrow circumstances in which the law has recognized that a person’s statements, even if otherwise libelous, are more important than the protection of a plaintiff’s rights. Smith about his company’s interpretation of libel and rationale for instructing the company’s lawyer to contact TD. In a telephone conversation this weekend, we asked Mr. For the purposes of this article, the spokesperson will be identified as Mr. ![]() We spoke with a company spokesperson who asked to remain anonymous for now due to the barrage of offensive communication Mediabridge and its employees continue to receive. Sullivan for more), and it’s not clear how a court would label Mediabridge in this situation. Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. It’s only when defamation concerns public officials or public figures that the higher standard of “actual malice” must be shown (see the 1964 U.S. In coverage of this story at other websites and on message boards, many have also suggested that Mediabridge would have to show that TD knew his statements were false in order to prove libel, but that’s not necessarily true when dealing with private individuals or entities. While defamation laws can vary by jurisdiction, in general, a plaintiff seeking to prevail on a defamation claim must prove that the defendant’s statement was (1) false, (2) injurious, and (3) unprivileged. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |