California Libel Law
Libel is a written or visual false representation of a person that has been published in a permanent way with proven disregard for facts or the truth. It should not be confused with slander, which refers to oral or spoken proven untruths. Both libel and slander fall under the category of defamation and as such are part of California's defamation laws, California Civil Code 44, 45a and 46.
Other People Are Reading
-
Elements of libel
-
For a statement to be considered libelous under California law, it must be published in a permanent manner (such as a newspaper article or blog) and cause the person to whom the libelous statement refers to become shunned, derided or generally negatively received in some way. That is, there must be a negative reaction by the general public, professional associates or friends and family to the person as a direct result of the written or visual product.
Proving Libel
-
California cases in the past have shown that plaintiffs in libel cases must also prove the degree to which they have been damaged by the libel--for example the number of customers a business has lost due to a false statement published in a newspaper about it.
-
Public Versus Private Individuals
-
California law has different standards of proof for libel for private individuals and public figures. A private individual has to prove that the libelous statement was at least the result of negligence--for example, if a reporter did not make a satisfactory effort to check the facts of a story before publishing it.
Public figures, limited public figures and public officials in California, however, must prove that the libelous statement was made with malice and on purpose (i.e., the author or publisher knew the statement or image was false and would hurt the plaintiff but knowingly published it anyway).
Neutral Reportage Privilege
-
It is important to note that the California Supreme Court has not acknowledged neutral reportage privilege. Neutral reportage privilege pertains to a situation in which one publication cites or quotes another publication or source it deems to be reliable but the original source was in fact libelous. Under neutral reportage privilege, the second source would not be liable for libel. For example, if a blogger quotes CNN.com, but CNN.com gave libelous information, under neutral reportage privilege the blogger would not be able to be held accountable for libel. However, according to the Citizen Media Law Project, "there are relatively strong indications that state courts in California would apply the privilege if faced with the proper fact pattern." The only California case in which neutral reportage privilege has been applied, however, involved a public figure.
Statute of Limitations
-
The statute of limitations for any defamation suit in California is one year.
-
References
Resources
- Photo Credit Books image by Marina Bartel from Fotolia.com
