Misplaced Pages

#470529

86-397: The Late Shift or Late Shift may refer to: The Late Shift (book) , 1994 book about Johnny Carson's retirement from The Tonight Show , and conflict about successors The Late Shift (film) , a 1996 HBO film based on the book Comedy Inc: The Late Shift , a 2005–2007 series of Australian sketch show Comedy Inc. Late Shift ,

172-443: A per se action: If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false, to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. However, to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages. As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamation per se . This means that even if

258-733: A New York City tabloid . The then-pending lawsuit was noted in the closing credits of the film, as the Broadway tune " There's No Business Like Show Business " plays. The lawsuit settled out of court for an undisclosed sum; Kushnick died of cancer in August 1996. A film adaption of the book was produced in 1996 by HBO , directed by Betty Thomas , and starring John Michael Higgins as Letterman and Daniel Roebuck as Leno. The film received seven Emmy Award nominations in categories including "Outstanding Made for Television Movie", makeup, casting, writing, and directing, acting. For her role in

344-419: A case the truth of the statements was no justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made, but, even in public matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel and proving his assertions to be true. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case

430-466: A child with a Christian man, and that this act was common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that "since the publication implied the act was one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed." Though various reports of this case give differing accounts of

516-799: A commoner in England was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a member of the English aristocracy was called scandalum magnatum, literally "the scandal of magnates". Following the Second World War and with the rise of contemporary international human rights law , the right to a legal remedy for defamation was included in Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that: This implies

602-406: A criminal offence and provide for penalties as such. Article 19 , a British free expression advocacy group, has published global maps charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders or functionaries of the state. There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in

688-408: A defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant: Additionally, American courts apply special rules in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defence. While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into

774-464: A famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally trademark dilution , " intentional interference with contract ", and "negligent misrepresentation". In America, for example, the unique tort of false light protects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading. Libel and slander both require publication. Although laws vary by state; in America,

860-491: A full-motion video game released in 2017 Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title The Late Shift . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Late_Shift&oldid=1239075077 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description

946-458: A humiliating or degrading manner), et cetera. "Fama" is a generic term referring to reputation and actio iniuriarum pertaining to it encompasses defamation more broadly Beyond simply covering actions that fall within the broader concept of defamation, "actio iniuriarum" relating to infringements of a person's corpus provides civil remedies for assaults, acts of a sexual or indecent nature, and 'wrongful arrest and detention'. In Scots law , which

SECTION 10

#1732801488471

1032-434: A libel case in an American court, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth (i.e. actual malice ). The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. An early example of libel

1118-498: A long history stretching back to classical antiquity. While defamation has been recognized as an actionable wrong in various forms across historical legal systems and in various moral and religious philosophies, defamation law in contemporary legal systems can primarily be traced back to Roman and early English law. Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation

1204-466: A person that is included in a personal database and that one knows to be false, is punished with six months to three years in prison. When there is harm to somebody, penalties are aggravated by an extra half (Article 117 bis, §§ 2nd and 3rd). Defamation law in Australia developed primarily out of the English law of defamation and its cases, though now there are differences introduced by statute and by

1290-574: A provably false factual connotation. Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet. American defamation law is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries . A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and

1376-634: A right to legal protection against defamation; however, this right co-exists with the right to freedom of opinion and expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Article 19 of the ICCPR expressly provides that the right to freedom of opinion and expression may be limited so far as it is necessary "for respect of the rights or reputations of others". Consequently, international human rights law provides that while individuals should have

1462-430: A statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of " invasion of privacy " in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". The tort of harassment created by Singapore's Protection from Harassment Act 2014 is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute. There

1548-503: Is 'little historical basis in Scots law for the kind of structural difficulties that have restricted English law' in the development of mechanisms to protect so-called 'rights of personality'. The actio iniuriarum heritage of Scots law gives the courts scope to recognise, and afford reparation in, cases in which no patrimonial (or 'quasi-patrimonial') 'loss' has occurred, but a recognised dignitary interest has nonetheless been invaded through

1634-471: Is 40,000 ALL to three million ALL (c. $ 25 100 ). In addition, defamation of authorities, public officials or foreign representatives (Articles 227, 239 to 241) are separate crimes with maximum penalties varying from one to three years of imprisonment. In Argentina , the crimes of calumny and injury are foreseen in the chapter "Crimes Against Honor" (Articles 109 to 117-bis) of the Penal Code. Calumny

1720-417: Is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of " misrepresentation ", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that

1806-566: Is clear and accessible to everyone", 2) "proven to be necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputations of others", and 3) "proportionate and the least restrictive to achieve the purported aim". This test is analogous to the Oakes Test applied domestically by the Supreme Court of Canada in assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights are "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society" under Section 1 of

SECTION 20

#1732801488471

1892-431: Is closely related to Roman Dutch law, the remedy for defamation is similarly the actio iniuriarium and the most common defence is "veritas" (i.e. proving the truth of otherwise defamatory statement). Defamation falls within the realm of non-patrimonial (i.e. dignitary) interests. The Scots law pertaining to the protection of non-patrimonial interests is said to be 'a thing of shreds and patches'. This notwithstanding, there

1978-544: Is defined as "the false imputation to a determined person of a concrete crime that leads to a lawsuit" (Article 109). However, expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive do not constitute calumny. Penalty is a fine from 3,000 to 30,000 pesos . He who intentionally dishonor or discredit a determined person is punished with a penalty from 1,500 to 20,000 pesos (Article 110). He who publishes or reproduces, by any means, calumnies and injuries made by others, will be punished as responsible himself for

2064-446: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages The Late Shift (book) The book chronicles the behind-the-scenes corporate battle surrounding American late-night talk shows , leading up to, and after, Johnny Carson 's 1992 retirement as host of NBC 's The Tonight Show . The book primarily details the power struggle between David Letterman and Jay Leno to succeed Carson as

2150-574: Is further affected by federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law. New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The current Act is the Defamation Act 1992 which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the Defamation Act 1954 . New Zealand law allows for

2236-617: Is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent. Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention. The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date the American Revolution . Though the First Amendment of the American Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, it was primarily envisioned to prevent censorship by

2322-764: Is more controversial as it involves the state expressly seeking to restrict freedom of expression . Human rights organisations, and other organisations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe , have campaigned against strict defamation laws that criminalise defamation. The freedom of expression advocacy group Article 19 opposes criminal defamation, arguing that civil defamation laws providing defences for statements on matters of public interest are better compliant with international human rights law. The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of

2408-552: Is no need to prove that specific damage or loss has occurred. However, Section 6 of the Act allows for a defamation action brought by a corporate body to proceed only when the body corporate alleges and proves that the publication of the defamation has caused or is likely to cause pecuniary loss to that body corporate. As is the case for most Commonwealth jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in Quebec where

2494-399: Is nonetheless a powerful story, and ultimately a sad one, filled with casualties as well as winners. Mr. Leno, who has been made to seem a second choice by the very people who elevated him, has been betrayed by his employers in the most basic of ways, and he has not yet recovered." Kim Campbell reviewed the book for The Christian Science Monitor . "More than just a play-by-play account of

2580-401: Is not defamation. While defamation torts are broadly similar across common law jurisdictions; differences have arisen as a result of diverging case law, statutes and other legislative action, and constitutional concerns specific to individual jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of injury , intentional infliction of emotional distress , involving the making of

2666-409: Is often purchased by publishers and journalists to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits. Roughly 3/4 of all money spent on claims by liability insurers goes to lawyers and only 1/4 goes to settlements or judgments, according to one estimate from Michelle Worrall Tilton of Media Risk Consultants. Some advise buying worldwide coverage that offers defense against cases regardless of where in

The Late Shift - Misplaced Pages Continue

2752-461: Is that of truth. Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence. Where a statement is partially true, certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence "shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to

2838-509: Is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was hired to publish the New York Weekly Journal . When he printed another man's article criticising William Cosby , the royal governor of Colonial New York , Zenger was accused of seditious libel . The verdict was returned as not guilty on the charge of seditious libel, because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so there

2924-492: Is typically regarded as a tort for which the offended party can take civil action . The range of remedies available to successful plaintiffs in defamation cases varies between jurisdictions and range from damages to court orders requiring the defendant to retract the offending statement or to publish a correction or an apology. Modern defamation in common law jurisdictions are historically derived from English defamation law . English law allows actions for libel to be brought in

3010-528: The California Code of Civil Procedure and Ontario's Protection of Public Participation Act do so by enabling defendants to make a special motion to strike or dismiss during which discovery is suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff. There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions. The two most fundamental defences arise from

3096-653: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the " necessary in a democratic society " test applied by the European Court of Human Rights in assessing limitations on rights under the ECHR, Section 36 of the post- Apartheid Constitution of South Africa , and Section 24 of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. Nevertheless, the worldwide use of criminal and civil defamation , to censor, intimidate or silence critics, has been increasing in recent years. In 2011,

3182-444: The Commonwealth of Independent States , America, and Canada. Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of R v Orme and Nutt (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of

3268-460: The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the actual malice test adopted in the US case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan . Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defence of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication, or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of

3354-595: The United Nations Human Rights Committee published their General comment No. 34 (CCPR/C/GC/34) – regarding Article 19 of the ICCPR. Paragraph 47 states: Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3 [of Article 19 of the ICCPR], and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as

3440-401: The defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about public figures , consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in

3526-465: The "King of Late Night", NBC choosing Leno over Letterman as the next Tonight Show host, and Letterman later moving to rival network CBS . The following is a partial list of people featured in the book: In a review of The Late Shift for The New York Times Book Review , Jon Katz wrote, "[This] is a reporter's book, unfailingly balanced, thoroughly researched, filled with scoops and fresh details. Even though CBS's wooing and winning of Mr. Letterman

The Late Shift - Misplaced Pages Continue

3612-483: The Dutch Caribbean) gives rise to a claim by way of " actio iniuriarum ". For liability under the actio iniuriarum , the general elements of delict must be present, but specific rules have been developed for each element. Causation, for example, is seldom in issue, and is assumed to be present. The elements of liability under the actio iniuriarum are as follows: Under the actio iniuriarum , harm consists in

3698-600: The English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (oral speech). It is treated as a civil wrong ( tort , delict ), as a criminal offence , or both. Defamation and related laws can encompass a variety of acts (from general defamation and insult – as applicable to every citizen –‍ to specialized provisions covering specific entities and social structures): Defamation law has

3784-531: The High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation ) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. In contemporary common law jurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than

3870-533: The United States, criminal defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states ( Idaho , Kansas , Louisiana , Nevada , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Utah ) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has also published a detailed database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European countries, all member countries of

3956-409: The actions that followed Johnny Carson's 1991 retirement announcement, Carter's well-written book is a look at the history of the late-night franchise, and of the men who host the shows that we would rather watch instead of going to bed." Campbell described the book as revealing in its assessment of NBC's decision to pass over Letterman for The Tonight Show , concluding, "Carter's eye-opening book leaves

4042-435: The calumnies and injuries whenever its content is not correctly attributed to the corresponding source. Exceptions are expressions referring to subjects of public interest or that are not assertive (see Article 113). When calumny or injury are committed through the press, a possible extra penalty is the publication of the judicial decision at the expenses of the guilty (Article 114). He who passes to someone else information about

4128-412: The case told that the jury believed that "where a writing ... inveighs against mankind in general, or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel." This jury believed that only individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the jury was unable to identify

4214-528: The controversy involving Jay Leno , Conan O'Brien , The Tonight Show and NBC was released on November 4, 2010. Libel Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable , and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour . In

4300-606: The country by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice – that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims, as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain

4386-539: The crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal or perhaps greater risk of violence. For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though most libel cases are civil torts. In a variety of Common Law jurisdictions, criminal laws prohibiting protests at funerals, sedition , false statements in connection with elections, and

SECTION 50

#1732801488471

4472-471: The criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others. While each legal tradition approaches defamation differently, it

4558-538: The defences of absolute and qualified privilege, fair comment, and justification. While statutory law in the United Kingdom provides that, if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges against him, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation, there is no corresponding provision in India, though it

4644-421: The doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact (as opposed to opinion) can be defamatory. This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences: opinion and truth. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non-falsifiable. Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion, the most common defence in common law jurisdictions

4730-543: The exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to identify the statements were a libel. Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v. Osborne (1732). In this case, the defendant was on trial "for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews". The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a Jewish woman to death when she had

4816-830: The film as Helen Kushnick, actress Kathy Bates won awards from the American Comedy Awards , the Golden Globe Awards , the Satellite Awards , and the Screen Actors Guild Awards . The film was recognized with an award for "Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Dramatic Specials" from the Directors Guild of America Awards . A sequel to The Late Shift called The War for Late Night , based on

4902-430: The first few decades of the twenty first century, the phenomenon of strategic lawsuits against public participation has gained prominence in many common law jurisdictions outside Singapore as activists, journalists, and critics of corporations, political leaders, and public figures are increasingly targeted with vexatious defamation litigation. As a result, tort reform measures have been enacted in various jurisdictions;

4988-402: The following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages. Section 28 of the Act allows for punitive damages only when a there is a flagrant disregard of the rights of the person defamed. As the law assumes that an individual suffers loss if a statement is defamatory, there

5074-533: The freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986). According to the Criminal Code of Albania , defamation is a crime. Slandering in the knowledge of falsity is subject to fines of from 40 000 ALL (c. $ 350) to one million ALL (c. $ 8350 ). If the slandering occurs in public or damages multiple people, the fine

5160-423: The impression that NBC will be remembered more for its loss of Letterman, than for its role as creator of late-night television." Helen Kushnick , Jay Leno's manager at the time of Carson's retirement who was pushed out following her heavy-handed tactics, filed a $ 30 million lawsuit against Bill Carter, claiming libel . Specifically, her case related to a claim that she planted a story about Carson's retirement in

5246-498: The infringement of a personality right, either "corpus", "dignitas", or "fama". Dignitas is a generic term meaning 'worthiness, dignity, self-respect', and comprises related concerns like mental tranquillity and privacy. Because it is such a wide concept, its infringement must be serious. Not every insult is humiliating; one must prove contumelia . This includes insult ( iniuria in the narrow sense), adultery, loss of consortium, alienation of affection, breach of promise (but only in

SECTION 60

#1732801488471

5332-474: The like, then it is slander. In contrast, libel encompasses defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel. The highest award in an American defamation case, at US$ 222.7 million was rendered in 1997 against Dow Jones in favour of MMAR Group Inc; however,

5418-514: The offence was constituted by the unnecessary act of shouting. According to Ulpian , not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of Labeo , he asserted that the offence consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city (" adversus bonos mores huius civitatis ") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt (" quae... ad infamiam vel invidiam alicuius spectaret ") the person exposed thereto. Any act apt to bring another person into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum . In such

5504-403: The offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. In Anglo-Saxon England , whose legal tradition is the predecessor of contemporary common law jurisdictions, slander was punished by cutting out the tongue. Historically, while defamation of

5590-433: The person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander , and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel . The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, such as spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or

5676-448: The private law is derived from French civil law). In common law provinces and territories, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public. Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995),

5762-730: The publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi , from which is derived the modern use of the word libel ; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils , the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matters contained in them were true or false. The Praetorian Edict, codified circa AD 130, declared that an action could be brought up for shouting at someone contrary to good morals: " qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium dabo. " In this case,

5848-505: The reputation or rights of others. Additionally, restrictions of freedom of expression and other rights guaranteed by international human rights laws (including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and by the constitutions of a variety of countries are subject to some variation of the three-part test recognised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee which requires that limitations be: 1) "provided by law that

5934-458: The right to a legal remedy for defamation, this right must be balanced with the equally protected right to freedom of opinion and expression. In general, ensuring that domestic defamation law adequately balances individuals' right to protect their reputation with freedom of expression and of the press entails: In most of Europe, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech when necessary to protect

6020-490: The state rather than defamation suits; thus, for most of American history, the Supreme Court did not interpret the First Amendment as applying to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan dramatically altered the nature of libel law in

6106-533: The statement is true or is a statement of fact, it does not actually harm someone's reputation. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures . Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public". Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include: Media liability or defamation insurance

6192-451: The statement was defamatory. In an action for defamation per se , the law recognises that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all jurisdictions recognise defamation per se , there are four general categories of false statement that typically support

6278-547: The statement would be considered defamatory per se if false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamation per se cannot survive. The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to homosexuality , ruled that describing someone as gay

6364-399: The statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent. Common law jurisdictions vary as to whether they permit corporate plaintiffs in defamation actions. Under contemporary Australian law, private corporations are denied the right to sue for defamation, with an exception for small businesses (corporations with less than 10 employees and no subsidiaries); this rule

6450-417: The subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of

6536-459: The truth of the remaining charges". Similarly, the American doctrine of substantial truth provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true. Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person's reputation, another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that, regardless of whether

6622-413: The truthfulness of the statement; where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official, they must additionally prove that the statement was made with actual malice (i.e. the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth). A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win

6708-543: The use of profanity in public, are also often used in contexts similar to criminal libel actions. The boundaries of a court's power to hold individuals in "contempt of court" for what amounts to alleged defamatory statements about judges or the court process by attorneys or other people involved in court cases is also not well established in many common law countries. While defamation torts are less controversial as they ostensibly involve plaintiffs seeking to protect their right to dignity and their reputation, criminal defamation

6794-607: The verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees. In common law jurisdictions, civil lawsuits alleging defamation have frequently been used by both private businesses and governments to suppress and censor criticism. A notable example of such lawsuits being used to suppress political criticism of a government is the use of defamation claims by politicians in Singapore's ruling People's Action Party to harass and suppress opposition leaders such as J. B. Jeyaretnam . Over

6880-452: The world they are filed, since a compainant can look for a more favorable jurisdiction to file their claim. Investigative journalism usually requires higher insurance premiums, with some plans not covering investigative work altogether. Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se , such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that

6966-559: The wrongful conduct of the defender. For such reparation to be offered, however, the non-patrimonial interest must be deliberately affronted: negligent interference with a non-patrimonial interest will not be sufficient to generate liability. An actio iniuriarum requires that the conduct of the defender be 'contumelious' —that is, it must show such hubristic disregard of the pursuer's recognised personality interest that an intention to affront ( animus iniuriandi ) might be imputed. In addition to tort law, many jurisdictions treat defamation as

7052-631: Was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of actual malice , which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". Many jurisdictions within the Commonwealth (e.g. Singapore, Ontario, and the United Kingdom ) have enacted legislation to: Libel law in England and Wales was overhauled even further by the Defamation Act 2013 . Defamation in Indian tort law largely resembles that of England and Wales . Indian courts have endorsed

7138-599: Was introduced by the state of New South Wales in 2003, and then adopted nationwide in 2006. By contrast, Canadian law grants private corporations substantially the same right to sue for defamation as individuals possess. Since 2013, English law charts a middle course, allowing private corporations to sue for defamation, but requiring them to prove that the defamation caused both serious harm and serious financial loss, which individual plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate. Defamation in jurisdictions applying Roman Dutch law (i.e. most of Southern Africa, Indonesia, Suriname, and

7224-423: Was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although punitive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to

7310-457: Was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel is the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The Supreme Court of the United States overruled a state court in Alabama that had found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what The Times printed

7396-447: Was the subject of enormous publicity, Mr. Carter's book makes clear that we knew less than we thought about what was really going on." Katz criticized the book for not going into more depth about Letterman's switch to CBS, writing, "As readable as it is, 'The Late Shift' needed to take a more critical, detached look at the long-term significance of Mr. Letterman's move. A number of questions are not addressed." He concluded, "'The Late Shift'

#470529