Tort Of Defamation In Canada

12. New York Times v Sullivan (502)- First off you need to know that libel is the written defamation of character. A person who believes their name and character have been harmed can sue. In this case, the supreme court declared that freedom of the press takes precedence—at least when the defamed individual is a public official.

In common law, defamation in writing is classified as Libel, and oral defamation as Slander” There are four elements of defamation.

In Canada, freedom of speech is generally protected under Section 2 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Criminal Code of Canada, however, limits these freedoms and provides for several forms of punishable hate speech. The form of punishable hate speech considered to encompass fighting words is identified in Section 319:

o Defamation – An intentional tort. The reputation of the victim is damaged publicly by untrue statements made by the tort-feezer.

The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his official conduct.

The majority consisted of Justice Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, and Arthur J. Goldberg. The majority opinion was made by William J. Brennan, to protect the right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment, the Court rule that the criminal libel law should follow the same standards as civil libel law. True statements regardless of its malicious value will not be considered libel. While statements that are intentionally false or created with a rash disregard for the truth are considered to be libel and can be punished by the law. The restriction was modeled from a prior case, New York Times v. Sullivan, freedom of speech protection should not be exercise separately to a civil libel statute than to a criminal case. The Court concluded that the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute was unlawfully broad and that it breaches the protections of the First Amendment’s free

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

The Plaintiff, Sullivan, was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama who sued the Defendant, the New York Times, for printing and releasing an full page ad about the civil rights movement taking place in the south that defamed Sullivan. The ad was called "Heed Their Rising Voices" and it caused a "wave" of terror that had been directed against those who took place in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the facts were false. The ad didn't single handily point out Sullivan, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant stated that they didn't have any reason or proof to say the facts were false. No one put out the extra effort to see if the facts were false

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) was a United States Supreme Court case that defined a clear standard of First Amendment protection against instances of defamation brought by individuals who are private individuals. Four subsequent cases that have cited Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) as precedent include the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978); Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983); and Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Company…….

Plaintiff can establish slander per se by showing that the defamatory statements made injured their profession and reputation while drawing question to a particular skill necessary for proper conduct. However, allegations of plaintiff’s character do not meet slander per se. Joseph E. Hancock v. Easwaran P. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (14th Dist. 2016). To be actionable as slander per se, criminal allegations must be in accordance with the elements of criminal statues of the state, simply stating that plaintiff stole is not sufficient. Skillern v. Brookshire Et Al., 58 S.W. 2d 544 (Tex. Civ. App. 1933). For a statement to be slander per se, it must not use an innuendo to interpret the meaning of the statement and insults are not considered as outrageous behavior. David E. Moore v. Billy Waldrop, 166 S.W.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2006). Words which charge an employee with dishonesty in dealing with his employer are held as slander per se and injury to reputation is presumed. W.R. Tatum v. Carolyn Liner, 749 S.W.2d 251 (N.D. Tex. 2007). However, proof of malice is not required to entitle the plaintiff to actual damages in a slander per se case but the presumption of malice may be rebutted. W.R. Tatum. Privilege is an exception to slander per se but it can be destroyed when it is abused by the individual claiming it. W.R. Tatum

Libel simply is "defamation of character by published word", the publishing of falsities to hurt a person's reputation or standing. However, now it is not limited to only printed word as in newspapers or magazines. Slander, which is defined as "defamation of character by spoken word" is now portrayed as a form

Response: Defamation Law is under Tort Law and it is referred to as “false statements about a person, communicated as fact to one or more other persons by an individual or entity (such as a person, newspaper, magazine, or political organization), which causes damage and does harm to the target’s reputation and/or standing in the community”. State legislation primarily addresses defamation. In these cases, Constitutional law can be applied to certain defamation claims due to the right of free speech. Slander and libel are categorized as different forms of defamation.

I agree that, Katherine could have used better judgement in her actions, however, I do not think her actions ascended to warrant defamation. The student only stated her opinion and invited other students to voice their opinions as well. However, I do believe that Katherine intended to cause her teacher emotional distress. Therefore, Katherine's parents could be faced with a lawsuit for Intentional Inflections of Emotional Distress" or IIED. Although, I do agree that the Tinker Standard has opened some very ugly doors in the era of free speech, however, I do not believe that Bethel School District. No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986, actually reversed the Tinker win. Nonetheless, I believe that Bethel v. Fraser lent merit to Tinker.

     Due to the impact defamation has on certain groups of people the Anti-Defamation Leauge (ADL) has been established. It is an American organization set up to fight