The Assignment: A Multifaceted Approach to Defamation
Image credit: Reputation Intelligence - Reputation Quality
Defamation taking place on online has become a bigger problem and that has led to the strong growth of law firms and attorneys focusing on defending clients against this particular form of illegal communication — more cases than you might assume.
Recently there was an excellent article — Defamation and Reputation Management in the Digital Age — published at JD Supra about this topic that came with case examples. I recommend it.
I’ll list many (not all) of the article’s points here and comment on them.
First, the obvious, for clarity purposes: “Defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that injures their reputation.”
The continued development of — and use of — the internet has resulted in “ideal conditions for defamatory content to spread and cause harm.”
It’s important to know, if you want to be able to claim the legal definition of defamation and seek remedy, what has to be present in the court’s mind.
“To successfully sue for defamation, a plaintiff must establish several key elements.
“First, the statement in question must be a false statement, presented as fact.”
This is vitally important and here’s why.
“Opinions, even if offensive, are generally not considered defamatory.”
It is often a painful revelation to people that nasty opinions are protected as freedom of speech. You may very well feel like you are being illegally attacked yet the law and courts are not going to address every foul opinion. You have to show that a clearly false communication was presented as factual if you want to go after legal assistance.
“Second, the statement must be communicated or published to a third party,” meaning that, “Communication with the plaintiff alone does not constitute defamation.”
This is a checkpoint that has to have clear, indisputable evidence of transpiring. Question: To whom (singular or plural) and where was the alleged defamatory communication communicated?
“Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement caused harm to his or her reputation.”
This might be simple or it might require proof that you find challenging to generate.
“Finally, the plaintiff needs to prove some level of fault on the part of the defendant. This could range from negligence (lacking reasonable care in avoiding the publication of a false statement) to actual malice (knowingly publishing a false statement or acting with reckless disregard for the truth).”
Proof can feel easy to produce and sometimes it may be but other times, it is easier said than done when the type that the law and the court demand is more tedious and “extra” than we believe may be necessary.
We may “know” beyond a doubt that communication is defamatory but the law and courts may say, “no, it isn’t.”
It’s helpful to understand that when it comes to defamation, “Libel is in written form, such as articles, emails and social media posts, while slander is communicated through spoken words.”
“A reputation once broken may be repaired but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was.”
English moral philosopher Joseph Hall
Helpful to your argument may be the fact that, “On the internet, even unfounded claims and rumors may persist, since material on the internet is easily accessible and permanent.”
That’s a difficult point for perpetrators to dispute and a strong fact to pound home.
“False charges and rumors can spread far and damage a company’s reputation long after they are made.”
That’s problematic and it’s a more common occurrence than realized, which makes the defamation response so important to plan and conduct precisely and skillfully.
“Strategic reputation management and open communication are vital for defamation victims to regain the trust of the community.”
That’s a hard, slow road to travel yet it can be done successfully with professional assistance and a team-oriented mindset that values process and persistence over emotions that might naturally want to avoid, resist (fight) or give up.
“To minimize damage and rebuild confidence, combating internet defamation requires a multifaceted strategy that includes proactive public relations, reputation management techniques and legal action.”
The overwhelming majority of people believe, “hire a lawyer and that’s all I need to do.” And if you earn a large settlement or the court rules in your favor, then yes, maybe you will find yourself fully satisfied.
However, that’s not always the case and there are certainly, absolutely instances where people still suffer afterward from defamatory communication experiences.
That means, a more thorough treatment of legal action and defamation response communications and tending to important stakeholder relationships is a superior game plan to implement and carry out, if not flawlessly, then impressively, to win.
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
Mark Twain
What does that mean to you? Twain is saying — and this has been proven — that negativity travels at higher velocity among people while facts, evidence and truth are more “tortoise” paced than that of a hare.
It’s a highly-painful reality to learn that a “‘guilty until proven innocent’ mentality has been encouraged by the ease with which information can be shared, where charges are frequently taken at face value regardless of their veracity.”
In other words, people’s biases, habits and tendency to jump to conclusions makes for ripe conditions for defamation to take root and thrive and people to falsely, unjustly, cruelly deemed others as “guilty until proven innocent” in the distorted thinking of the court of public opinion.
Michael Toebe can help you respond best to people’s efforts to smear your name. He is the founder of Reputation Intelligence - Reputation Quality and a specialist for helping individuals and organizations through complex, challenging, dangerous experiences involving reputation and protecting them along the way. Contact him at 316-226-4071, reputation.intelligence.rq@gmail.com or through the form below.
