And Could Susan Cummings Be Sued?
Since everybody that writes for Associated Content writes for the Internet, it is important to understand that there are laws against libel. However, it is also important to understand that there is a right to free speech and as long as a person's reputation is not hurt by what is written, then what was written cannot truly be considered libel.Libel falls under defamation laws. There are two main categories of defamation laws. Those are libel and slander. Libel is when written defamation occurs. Slander is when spoken defamation occurs.
A great way to remember this is that libel is literature and slander is speech. That way the initial letters match each term used.
In the United States, libel laws were established after the the 1734 case of journalist John Peter Zenger against Governor William Cosby of New York. Cosby has Zenger jailed for criticizing him in his newspaper. However, Zenger was found not guilty because everything he had published was based on fact.
There is a lot of speculation going on at Associated Content about libel when it comes to Samantha Cumming's article about Shirley Lowery.
The majority of her article is based on facts from wikisposure. There is obviously nothing wrong with using these quotes.
It is true that many of these things are not truly nice to say about a person. However, it is a good question to wonder about who would not think Lowery had not lost her mind at some point. All it takes is one reading of the wikisposure page to see why Cummings would write such things.
Lowery could try to sue, but it would not be worth it.
The other things posted by Cummings are opinions. Many people probably agree. There are probably those few in the minority who don't.
However, given the nature of the article, it is obvious that what Cummings has said is posted as an opinion and not given as facts. Nowhere in the article does it state that Lowery is on any certain type of medications or has any certain type of mental disease. All the things written are from wikisposure and are founded to be true to the best of knowledge.
Thus, Cummings's article is definitely not libel like some have said.
Comments
This was great, I enjoyed reading this information. Good article!!
:)
Great article. Libel, no way. A free and open discourse of opinions, no matter how contriversial, is important to a society. And also, a fact is a fact even though some people would care not to admit this.
Good article. Maintaining a right to a free opinion is important. Choosing not to dignify an opinion by comment is our prerogotive, but oh so difficult.
Very informative article.
Good information.
great information! so many people don't really know how libel laws work but are so quick to throw it around anyway, you provided a great piece to educate those that don't understand and might want to understand before they accuse someone.
Great job on this Bridget! I like your writing style. Great job! BTW I support Samantha completely and feel that libel is dependent on telling lies. To my knowledge there were no lies in the article she wrote. Great idea though for an article!
Samantha's article wasn't libel, the things Shirley has said are outragous. It's completely ridiculous to say that quoting Shirley Lowery saying that she thought Jessica Lunsfords death was "more of an assisted suicide" is defamation of character. The only person defaming themselves is Shirley, who needs to take some responsibility for what she said.
Is Lowrey a public figure? Not really. Not in the same sense here. I would say that she could get a lawsuit running.
Even if you've got an opinion, and are not presenting facts, that doesn't mean anything if it's negligent. Check out Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
Comments 1 - 10 (of 18)
Next >>
|
|