BUS624 DISCUSSION WEEK 2 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ashford University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
624
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by entbi2810
Defamation is defined by four elements: (1) unprivileged (2) publication of
(3) false and defamatory (4) statements concerning another.
In an effort to avoid defamation liability, the defendants would have to argue
each element of defamation. The statements made by the Town Crier column
regarding Jones were “political hatchet man”, “one of the biggest powers
behind the throne in local government”, “Jones pulls the strings”, “leading
Smithville to destruction”.
Unprivileged
First the statements need to be examined from the standpoint of whether
this is privileged information. Because these statements were made by a
journalist writing an article, and from the information provided do not appear
to be restatements from public meetings or government proceedings
(Prenkert et al., 2022), the journalist and the publisher of the Town crier, as
well as any contributors to the statements in question, can be held liable for
defamation if the statements meet the remaining three elements.
Publication
Because the statements were published in the Town Crier column, the
statements meet the second of four elements of defamation which is to be
published.
Statements Concerning Another
The statements made were regarding Jones, the plaintiff, and therefore the
statements meet the third of four required elements to qualify as
defamation.
False and Defamatory
The fourth element requires that the statements be individually analyzed as
to whether or not they can be proven as fact and are also defamatory. To do
this, the three-part test from Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 18 can be applied.
All four statements made by the journalist would be considered figurative or
hyperbolic as it is reasonable to conclude the author is not accusing Jones of
actually being a man who uses a hatchet on anyone or anything, refers to a
“throne” in government which would only exist in a monarchy, references
puppets in its mention of pulling strings, finally, conjures an image of a make
believe character bringing destruction to the local townspeople. Because of
the repeated use of figurative language the defamatory case would likely be
dismissed.
Additionally, because Jones is the town attorney, he is subject to the
additional burden of proving with clear and convincing evidence there was
actual malice in addition to defamation. Public officials and public figures are
burdened with proving that the statements were made by the defendant
even though the defendant knew they were false, and the public official or
figure must prove the statements were made recklessly, or with intent to
harm knowing they were false, (Prenkert et al., 2022).
Opinion
I do not think Jones should win this defamation case. Not only were the
statements figurative and subjective in nature, he is a public figure, paid by
tax payer money and has voluntarily exposed himself to additional scrutiny
by the public.
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.).
McGraw-Hill.
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