Defamation law recognizes differences between public and private figures. Unlike most people, who are considered private citizens, a politician or a celebrity is considered a public figure.
So if your next-door neighbor is having an affair, publishing a story about it in the local paper would be a clear violation of his privacy. However, when a public figure does the same thing, the press can reasonably assert that such an event is newsworthy. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for example, waged a prolonged legal battle claiming that hundreds of text messages detailing his illicit affair with a co-worker were private. He lost and ended up going to jail for perjury and other charges. 
When it comes to proving fault in a libel claim, the law also treats private and public individuals somewhat differently. Both private and public individuals must prove a publication is at fault, but private individuals only need to prove negligence on the part of the reporter/publication, while public figures must prove actual malice.
Here are some recent libel cases involving Elton John, David Beckham, Keira Knightly and Tom Cruise. As you know, defamation involves either slander through the spoken word or libel through the printed word. But what about social media? Is it only professional journalists who have to worry about these things? Read this article to learn more.
Creative Commons photo by Mike Licht
In my opinion, I feel that prominent figures should be allowed to sue for libel when what is said is very serious and can severely harm their reputation. However, instances like the one about the referee should not be allowed. The reporter tweeted that he made a bad call to make up for a bad call; that is her opinion, and it doesn't severely harm the referee. Statements like the one the reporter made are just trivial and it does not cause much harm. I feel that a line should be drawn between what is actually libelous and what is just strictly opinion.
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that prominent figures should be able to sue for libel, especially if their reputation is on the line. I, however, do not think the issue about the referee should be allowed. The statement that the reporter made will not do any severe harm. Though it is complicated, there are things that should and should not be allowed when suing for libel.
ReplyDeleteI think that prominent figures have the right to sue for libel, but only if the information published truly harms their reputation. The incident involving the referee was strictly opinion because the reporter thought it was a bad call. I'm sure there are many things that people could sue for if suing for libel included opinion. However, it does not and therefore the reporter did not do anything wrong other than just stating her opinion on a social networking site. I think it needs to be more apparent what is actually consider libel and what you can sue for. A simple opinion that may offend someone, such as the reporter's, isn't libelous, but if the reporter were to hurt the referee's reputation greatly, then the situation changes.
ReplyDeleteProminent figures should have the right to sue for libel because,as we read in the case of Keira Knightly, they can be stronly hurt by what is written. Although they should have the right to sue, they shouldn't always win because they do give up privacy when prominent.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, prominent, public figures should be able to sue for libel. Though they give up part of their privacy for being famous, they shouldn't have to inherit all the accusations and rumors that could seriously damage their reputation. However, these are much different from opinions, which are the people's right to have. The referee's case should not have been allowed, because everyone has the right to their own opinion, and the comment. I think libel is not something that only professional journalists have to worry about. Libel can happen anywhere, such as on a social networking site. Everyone should be careful about libel, because it is a major issue and there are very serious consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think that public figures should be able to sue for libel in most cases. However, if their activities affect the general public in a way that gives the public a right to know the details, then prominent public figures should not sue for libel. They should also not sue unless their reputation is seriously damaged in a way that affects others and their entire life and career. The referee issue was taking libel a bit too far. The person who said that he made a bad call to make up for a bad call was simply stating their opinion. The referee should have the right to sue, but the law should make it very difficult for him to win. Libel should not only be an issue for professional journalists, but for other forms of writing, too. A comment made by a high profile Twitter user on Twitter could harm someone's reputation just as much as a comment or story run in a newspaper.
ReplyDeletePublic figures should be able to successfully sue for libel. Tabloids are ruining the images of celebrities and while some people are aware that the articles are false, others are not. Tabloids incline that some prominent people are doing things they are not supposed to,and that can harm their reputation. especially with situations such as Kiera Knightley's. The newspaper implied that the actress caused the death of a young girl because of an eating disorder that Knightley had. Although they did not publish their own words. They were responsible for the quote which they published. It is still libelous because they had the choice to publish the quote and they chose to.
ReplyDeleteI believe that prominent figures do have the right to sue for libel. If something is published and it is untrue, it could greatly damage that celebrities career. Although when people become celebrities they do give up some of their privacy, it does not mean that they have the right to know privacy.Tabloids and other magazines who written false headlines are at fault if what they have written damages a celebrities career.
ReplyDeleteProminent and public figures should most definitely keep their right to sue for libel. These journalists are taking 'trying to catch a readers attention' to an extent where their stories are so scandalous and eye catching, that they're not even true anymore. It's hard to find a balance between easy and hard when speaking of celebrities suing for libel. It needs to be easy enough for celebrities to win the real libel cases, and yet difficult for celebrities to succeed the "referee" types of cases.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that public figures should be able to sue for libel. Although they are very prominent in society or very well known, they are still everyday people. However, if they do something that affects the public, then we as the people have the right to know. Halle Berry picking up her daughter from the bus stop ins't exactly news worthy.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe that prominent figures should be able to sue for libel. As humans, and citizens of the United States, everybody should have equal rights, celebrity or not. However, prominent figures do have to give up certain privileges and privacy is one of them. In my opinion, if an article destroys or ruins a reputation, then that celebrity/prominent figure should be able to successfully sue for libel. For example,David Beckham's claim for libel was rejected, but I don't believe it should have been. In Touch published a story that could have easily harmed Beckham's reputation and personal life. The story could have destroyed his marriage, and the relationship he had with his wife and children. If an article threatens a celebrity's personal life, then I believe they absolutely have the right to sue for libel.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to say I'm ashamed of the libel laws in our country as compared to others. Celebrities, while in the public eye, are still people and should have the right to some semblance of privacy. Unfortunately, they frequently lose libel cases against tabloids in court because they are unable to prove malice was involved. What a joke! Isn't that why tabloids exist? To sell sensationalist and often negative (and false) stories about celebrities. If half the stuff tabloids published were in reputable newspapers, said newspapers would probably go out of business. It's time for the law to start holding tabloids responsible for the damages they cause.
ReplyDeleteThe Twitter libel cases also surprised me. Is Facebook or Twitter really considered "publishing"? It's too informal a media setting for anything on there to be taken seriously by anyone. Example: During the recent election, there were several groups publishing less than flattering cartoons of both President Obama and Mitt Romney. Interestingly enough, there were no lawsuits there. Why? Because websites like Facebook and Twitter are places for people (even public figures) to freely express their thoughts and opinions. Libel is simply no real concern there
I believe that public figures should be able to sue for libel. When you become famous, you lose some of your privacy. Tabloids often publish false information just to get more readers. Although they have lost some of their privacy, when someone publishes false information about them, they are allowed to sue and should win. If a public figure publishes false information, they can be sued also. Keira Knightley sued and won the case because false information was published about her. This a good example of a celebrity suing and winning the case.
ReplyDeleteI think that celebrities should be able to sue for libel, even if it is through social media. I think that the people who post things on social media websites are publicly publishing whatever they say, and if it is a false statement of fact and people believe them and spread this false allegation then a celebrity should have a right to sue.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely 100% believe that any public figure should be able to sue for libel. Being famous, they understand that they have limited privacy, however, this doesn't meant that the media has the right to publish something harmful or hurtful to their reputation. By hurting their reputation, it may become harder for them to get another acting job, and ultimately hurt their career. Celebrities are people too, and their rights should be protected.
ReplyDeleteI understand that as a public figure, you lose some of your rights to privacy. However, I believe that public figures should be able to sue for libel if certain lines are crossed. Public figures have the right to maintain their image just as normal people do and I believe that it would be unfair for them not to have this ability.
ReplyDelete