Ask Me Help Desk - What's the difference between harassment, slander, and defamation of character?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracylke

whats the diffrence between.. harassment,slander n defemation of charather?
my x family member is tryin to mke my life hell...its been 4 years since we last spoke n that was due to her lies n involving my children n hers.. i just wanna no...if i can go after her legaly for the above mentioned... n if there is a diffrnce between them.. my kids are being harassed n hurt by this ,id like to get her 4 the drama she loves ta put us thru.

ps.. were outa state n have NO contact with her or her family, yet she is still a part of the family that We(me n my kids) still talk with, she is married to 1 of my younger brothers.

Here is all you want to know and more: Read the first paragraph CLOSELY:

Defamation, Libel and Slander Law

“Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: A false and defamatory statement concerning another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and Damage to the plaintiff.

The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and Damage to the plaintiff. In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish. Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may constitute defamation per se: Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude.

While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.

The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.

Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation. A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements. A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.

An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.

While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether such litigation should be attempted."