Why is calling Bush or Obama a Nazi legal free speech, but calling your neighbor a Nazi is illegal defamation?
In οthеr terms, lets ѕау I printed a news article calling уου a Nazi аnd saying thаt уουr views wеrе comparable tο Nazi policies. Isn’t thаt considered libel аnd defamatory?
Sο thеn, whу іѕ іt considered free speech tο dο thе same thing tο political figures?
Because Bush and Obama are Nazis.
No, using lables is not libel. SPECIFIC caims can be.
“Bob acts like a Nazi’ is legal. ‘Bob rounded up some Jewish people and killed them” is not.
The main reason for this is due to general effect on the persons’ reputation. A single person defaming a national figure probably will not get much attention, seeing as their opinion will either be widely disagreed with and ignored, or agreed with and thus, no longer seen as an unwarranted claim. But, a neighbor tends to have much less press directed their way, so a single claim against them can possibly ruin their reputation. For this reason alone, the slander/condemnation of political/national figures is much more commonplace.
Because political speech and public figures are treated differently under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Generally, a public official can only prevail on this type of claim if the statement is made despite meaningful it to be fake or with reckless disregard for the truth (malice).
The Supreme Court announced the actual malice standard which has to be met before reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation. It is an extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff – as a public official – to establish actual malice.
This standard comes from the 1964 choice New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
They are Public Figures.
When you place yourself and your opinions out in front of everyone, and they are expected to pay for them, they (the Public) have a aptly to have their opinions heard too. Even if it is personally defamatory. There is some rhetorical license here.
Private citizens, on the other hand, who are just minding their own affair, are under no similar obligation to place up with that kind of material. It is an infringement on their privacy.
That’s because the defence of certified privilege to defamation applies when commenting on political figures..
Defamation has long been used by politicians to stop people speaking freely and the courts have used the Constitution or in my country’s case the defence of certified privilege to encourage free speech
I reckon calling obama a nazi may be considered libel but since he’s a public figure i guess people are entitled to have a public opinion about him. A neighbor is a private citizen so you are ptobably not allowed to print anything about them without their permission
People will soon forget what you said but they will remember how you made them feel
you know hitler’s been getting a lot of attention these days every since that Iran guy’s speech the other day
well there is a distinction between stating an opinion and presenting an opinion as fact. If for example you place up a web site saying your neighbor was a child molestor and everyone showed up and burned down his house because of it you have done hurt to him with your statement. If it turns out that he was not a child molester you are now in deep crap. Of course, there is the additional problem in this instance that your terms may be construed as having incited the house burning, in which case you would also be in distress.
If you said instead on the website in your opinion he was a creepy rat and probable child molestor you are just stating an opinion which you are allowed to do. Unless, of course that opinion is deemed to have caused physical injury to persons or property (such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre).
Libel and slander are scandalously hard to prove. The movie “Nonexistence of Malice” is based on this difficulty.