|
SPECIAL CASES OF LIBEL LAW:
State-by-State IdiosyncraciesOne particularly important example in how it relates to the Internet of idiosyncratic differences in libel codes between states is the notion that in certain forms of libel, a plaintiff must first (unsuccessfully) seek a public retraction of the libelous statement in the forum in which it was originally printed. In the state of Wisconsin, for example, a retraction must be requested for any libelous statement appearing in "any newspaper, magazine, or periodical." (It's In the Cards, Inc. v. Fuschetto)
Privileged publications:In California, newspapers and other periodicals are protected from libel unless malice is directly involved. "The publications by a newspaper or other periodical... is privileged and is not a ground for libel action. This privilege does not extend to the republication of a matter if it is proved that the matter was republished with actual malice after it had ceased to be of public concern." (California Statues Sec. 11.13) The published article must be:
Public figures:Public figures such as politicians have less protection under libel law than average individuals. They cannot take action unless they can prove that the statement published about them is of malicious intent and not simply of misinformation. The reasoning behind this is that in theory a public figure can restore his or her reputation more quickly and easily expressly because he or she is already in the public eye and commands the attention of that public. (California Statues Sec. 11.24)
|