Libel Law Reflection

When looking at Libel Law, one must be concerned about the falsehoods made by a journalist and the damage it has upon the target of the Libel itself. When this is established, there must be a way to prove the intention of the libel to a court by meeting certain criteria. These criteria are based on the ability to prove that there was harmful intent in establishing falsehoods. This can also be seen when celebrities have very extreme and unrealistic claims made against them in articles that do not reflect the truth. These can be in magazines seen in grocery stores. And yet they are not usually taken off the shelves as those who are subject to the libel are not usually able to meet the criteria to prove that the Libel was made to damage the reputation of the individual. But why are those who prefer such negative claims against a person able to do so unimpeded?

Enter the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech of Americans to be able to say almost anything that they want. However, there are limits. One cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater if there is no such fire. This is an exception due to being able to easily prove and assume that there is harmful intent in such claims. When it comes to tabloid journalism, however, it is far harder to prove. What I mean by this is that the libel must be proven to have targeted that individual and had intent behind it to damage that individual. This is not a very easy thing to prove with intent. Unless there was some sort of admission of guilt by the individual who created such libel, then the court cannot easily rule in favor of the one targeted by the false claims as that would fall closer toward prior restraint which is illegal for the government to do based on the First Amendment restricting them from such measures. So the court often leans on the side of caution as they do not want to infringe on First Amendment rights.

However, prior to 1964, the term "libel" and "defamation" was seen as an entity closer toward obscene and incitement as it was viewed as something that existed toward those terms which are not protected speech under the First Amendment. This measure was viewed, later on, as a breach in the freedom of speech and, as such, was not available to be punished by the government as it would subsequently fall into protected speech. When things shifted to the other side in the battle between press and individuals, they also segmented public figures as having less protection as they are in the eye of the public, and thus are expected to have more libel sent their way as they exist with a target on them in the eyes of the public and media. So they had to prove actual malice behind the Libel that was made against them. But how does one go about proving malice?

Identification, the establishment that the libel was made against the plaintiff. Publication, the required proof that this libel was sent to a third party to publish it. Defamatory meaning, the requirement that the Libel was made to defame the individual. Falsity, the proof that renders the Libel false. Statement of fact, the requirement to prove the statements as false. Damages, the libel caused actual physical, financial, or reputational harm that resulted directly from it. These requirements go up in difficulty and, as such, are extremely difficult to prove in court. This means that most tabloid articles or negative statements about public figures are protected by the First Amendment. And it is up to the freedom of opinion that the people have as to whether they will believe these statements or not.

While this may be the case in terms of published pieces, one might wonder how this pertains to the internet. While the internet does have publishers and, as such, the regular rules apply, it is far harder to deal with this on social media. Any individual can make a statement on social media, and the responsibility to deal with this is usually left to the company that owns the platform as they have a responsibility to oversee and regulate their platform. So if someone is subject to false claims, they might litigate the company that owns that social media platform to deal with those using it as a platform to spread false information. This is why social media platforms usually remove these types of comments themselves to prevent any such litigation over the statements made. However, the court will often rule in favor of the social media platform as simply a forum for public opinion, unless the statements made are not protected under the First Amendment, just like a published claim would on any other platform.