What is the definition Libel?

As I am the target of serious and malicious lies and the object of online destruction by another person and/or group right now, I did a little digging and found this interesting information from http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html#Number%208


What is the definition of libel?



The classic definition is:
"a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
(Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108)










When should you sue for libel?



When you or your company is attacked by the media, competitors, or members of the public, should you sue for libel? Since these attacks are often unexpected and very damaging, there is often little time for considered reflection. Counsel must quickly answer some important questions when deciding whether or not you should sue for libel.


Why Sue?
If the answer is vengeance, money, or stopping the defamer from republishing the libel, a libel action probably is not warranted. Usually, a libel action should only be instituted if the primary objective is to vindicate reputation.



Other Options?
One must consider whether a libel action is the only method of achieving the corporation's particular objective or if a solution can be resolved through an apology, retraction, or by writing rebuttal articles or letters to the editor. If a request for an apology has been spurned by a defamer, the corporation can then proceed with a libel action with greater equanimity. In the preliminary letters to the defamer, demands for payments of damages should be avoided, if possible, since they will be viewed as "gold-digging".



Can you succeed in law?
In a libel action, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of libel:





The statement has been made to a third party.



The statement referred to the plaintiff. (This does not mean that the statement has to refer expressly to the plaintiff. A statement can be actionable if it is reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff).



The statement must be defamatory, which means that it must be a false statement to the plaintiff's discredit.






Defences
There are three principal defences to an action for libel:



Truth/justification. The defendant will succeed if they can substantially justify or prove the truth of the "sting" of the offending statements. Close analysis of the defamatory statement will avoid launching an ill-considered lawsuit.



Fair Comment. This defence will succeed if it can be shown that the statement is comment on facts truly stated. It can be defeated by evidence of malice.



Qualified privilege. This is a complicated legal defence and its application varies with the circumstances.





Wider Considerations
Thought must be given to other issues before proceeding with a libel action:



If the defamer is a disreputable publication or person, consider whether the statement should simply be treated with contempt, to avoid further republication.



Determine the extent and location of the publication's circulation. In the age of global business and communications, reputation may also be far-reaching.



Record all calls about the libel made by the claimant's customers, suppliers, financial institutions or any other people to assist in determining the impact of the libel. You may need to commission a poll to quantify the impact.



Libel actions are often heard by juries, which compounds the uncertainty inherent in the litigation process.



Ensure that the plaintiff has no skeletons in their closet, as they can emerge at the most awkward moments.








What is the difference between libel and slander?




Libel is written defamation and slander is oral defamation. In an action for libel one does not have to prove damages. They are presumed. Whereas in slander aside from four situations, one has to prove actual loss. In slander the law does not presume that the publication caused the plaintiff any damage. The plaintiff has to prove special damage except in the following four situations:




the words charged that the plaintiff committed a criminal offence



the words impute that the plaintiff has certain contagious diseases, or



the words impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl, or



the words are calculated disparage the plaintiff in any office profession, trade, calling or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication.










Does one have to prove damage in a libel action?



No. The law presumes that some damage will flow from the publication of a libel.








Does the Plaintiff have to prove the alleged libelous statements are true?



No. The law presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the statement is false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary.








Are journalists obliged to reveal their sources
or is there a journalist privilege?



In Canada there is no privilege that allows journalists to refuse to reveal their sources at trial. However, there is a rule of practice in certain provinces in Canada which allows a journalist to refuse to disclose the identity of his source at the examination for discovery in libel actions.








Can statements be protected by the use of the words "alleged", "it is rumoured" or by use of quotation marks?



This answer is no. One cannot escape liability for defamation by putting the libel behind a prefix such as "I have been told that ..." or "It is rumoured that ...", and then asserting that it was true that one had been told or that it was in fact being rumoured.... For the purpose of the law of libel, the hearsay statement is the same as a direct statement.
(Lord Devlin in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., [1963] 2 All E.R. 151 at 173)








Cyber Libel Issues: Can the operator of a website
be sued for libel for messages that are posted?



To date, actions for libel based on e-mails have been launched in Australia, England and the United States and have had varied results. For example a court in Western Australia found a publisher of a defamatory e-mail message on the Internet to be liable for $40,000 (Rindos v. Harwicke). An action by Dr. Laurence Godfrey of CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, for libel on usenet in England, was settled with the plaintiff accepting the defendant's payment of money into court (Godfrey). An action for an e-mail libel by an American businessman against a defendant journalist was settled (Suarez v. Meeks).

Current Principles Governing Liability:
Currently, the law governing owner/operators of computer bulletin boards or websites can be distilled into the following principles:





If the defamer is a disreputable publication or person, the statement could simply be treated with contempt, to avoid further republication.



A computer network service is not a "periodical", which would require an opportunity for retraction under the defamation statute of Wisconsin. (In the Cards Inc. v. Fuschetto 193 Wis.2d 429, 535 N.W.2d 11 C.A.).



Owners and/or operators of a network of computers are liable for defamatory material which they write and publish on the network, or receive from third parties and cause to be published on the network. Consequently, a corporation could be vicariously liable for statements published by employees.



If a third party publishes defamatory material on the network and the material is then retransmitted via the network, the owner and/or operator of the network may be liable, but only if:



they or their agents knew that the material was defamatory; or



they or their agents had reason to be suspicious that some or all of the material was defamatory. The nature and previous history of the newsgroup or mailing group where the defamatory material was posted, the previous history of the person posting the message, and reading the defamatory material are all factors which might spark the suspicions of network owners and/or operators.


If I am reading this correctly, not only can the person posting the libel be held responsible, but so can the site they posted their lies on.

Hmmm... something to think about...

Be sure to stay tuned... I have a feeling that information about Cease and Desist is coming next...