bus624 w2d2-3

.docx

School

Ashford University - California *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

624

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by ConstableDiscoveryStork15

Defamation is generally defined as the “(1) unprivileged (2) publication (3) false and defamatory (4) statements concerning another” (Prenkert, et al., 2022, p. 6-13). Before assessing Attorney Jones’ case against Smithville's newspaper, it is first important to note the two categories of defamation, libel and slander, to accurately determine defendant’s arguments and whether Jones’ should win the case. Libel and slander differ in their seriousness, permanence, and actionability of claims. Libel refers to defamation in physical form, including written, printed, radio, TV, on the internet and requires proof of damage to reputation or other harm. Slander refers to defamation in all other forms and requires proof of damage before any action can be taken, unless the statement is serious, in which case it can be classified as slander per se (Prenkert, et al., 2022). Issue: Does the Town Crier column’s claims of Attorney Jones as a “political hatchet man,” “leading Smithville to destruction” etc. defamatory? Rule: Defamation is the “(1) unprivileged (2) publication (3) false and defamatory (4) statements concerning another” (Prenkert, et al., 2022, p. 6-13). The Town Crier column’s claims can be further classified as libel because the claims were in physical form, printed in a newspaper (Prenkert, et al., 2022). Application: The rule states that a public figure plaintiff in a defamation case, when the media is the defendant, must prove actual malice of the defendants involved. Upon analysis, the Town Crier column is not fully privileged but maintains conditional privilege as their claims were made to protect the future of Smithville from Attorney Jones. Next the defamatory libel statement was published in the Smithville newspaper’s Town Crier column. It is uncertain whether the newspaper’s claims about Jones were true, but the figurative and hyperbolic nature of the language used detracts from the truthfulness of the claims made. Additionally, the statements made were all defamatory as they would have harmed Jones’ reputation and lowered his value in the eyes of the community. Finally, the statements made were in fact concerning another, Attorney Jones (Prenkert, et al., 2022). Conclusion: Given the analysis above and if Jones could prove actual malice of the Town Crier column authors through their knowledge of falsity and carless nonobservance of the truth (Prenkert, et al., 2022). I conclude that Attorney Jones would win this case. That said, I have identified some weak points in this case, that do not fully favor Jones, but the defendant. Those are that defendant’s statements came from place of conditional privilege, not fully privileged; and that all statements are potentially false but were defamatory. If Jones can provide convincing evidence of actual malice of defendants, which would be difficult to prove, then that could potentially reinforce the weak points in the case, securing his win. Arguments that defendants could use to avoid defamation liability would include (1) proof of truth as a complete defense; and (2) proving their privilege to defamation by highlighting the importance of sharing such claims with the public for the community’s well-being and best interest (Prenkert, et al., 2022).
References: Prenkert, J. D., Barnes, A. J., Perry, J. E., Haugh, T., & Stemler, A. R. (2022). Business law: The ethical, global, and digital environment (18th ed.).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help