Defamation Laws: Ruin Of Reputation In Social Media

DEFAMATION LAWS Name Institutional affiliations Date 1 Mr. Hollis can file a case against Tasha Joseph and the person who sent the information because the information was highly defaming and thus ruined his reputation. According to Code Anno., § 45-8-212 Criminal defamation, defamation occurs when there is anything that exposes an individual or a group of people, class and association to feelings of hatred, being ridiculed, if the remarks are degrading and positions the victim to disgrace in the society. The same law continues to note that the law applies whether the remarks were written, orally spoken or communicated through electronic means as defined by 45-8-213. This subsection also informs that if the defaming statements were passed to the third party without the consent of the person defamed should be treated as a criminal offense and the person who committed this offence can be sentenced to prison for a maximum of six months or should be made to pay a fine of a maximum of 500 dollars. If the plaintiff proves that these claims caused him damages or even affect his employment, he may win his case. These statements said on Joseph’s platform were defaming as they hurt his reputation. Defamation laws were published to protect the reputations of people and entities like businesses. In this case, the statement is a libel because the slander was written and posted on a social media platform. As a requirement, Hollis needs to prove that Ms. Joseph and the user of Joseph’s website made defaming false accusations against the plaintiff and that Tasha Joseph who is the host of the site provided unprivileged publication to the user. Hollis should also prove that Tasha Josephs acted negligently and published the false accusations which ruined his reputation and then provide proof of the damages caused as a result of the statements posted CITATION Wea15 \l 2057 (Weaver & Partlett, 2015). According to the American restatement of torts, these statements were defaming because they exposed the plaintiff to ridicule, it reflected negativity and caused the plaintiff mental suffering. On the plaintiff’s character, the statements compromised the level of the Plaintiff’s morality and integrity, and that the published claims could have caused the plaintiff psychological suffering because others did not want to associate with him. Since this case is a libel, Hollis must produce the published defamatory information which affected him. This is to prove that the statement was communicated and the people this message was addressed to understood the message. Also according to “the restatement “communication is an exchange of information where the recipient correctly or mistakably understands its content. When dealing with this case, the court will also consider associated facts and the availed circumstances to determine the meaning of the statements published on that site to consider if indeed they are defaming or not. Hollis will also have to prove that whatever was published on the website referred to him. It is not even necessary that the communication referred to the plaintiff by name, so long as, even the recipient of the information mistakenly believed that the information related to Mr. Hollis and that the belief is reasonable, Hollis can file a successful case against Tasha and the user of the website CITATION HGl18 \l 2057 (HG.legal resources. Org, 2018). Also, freedom of speech is not applicable in all situations because the remarks put forward by the third-party on Tasha’s website were highly damaging especially to his reputation and could have remarkably affected his wellbeing. Once this statement was made to the public, the remarks will stay in the minds of the recipients for a very long time, and all this time, the life of the plaintiff will be negatively affected. The statements that were communicated by the third party can be classified in the Slander per se claims where Hollis will need to have a witness and evidence that these claims occurred. Also, Mr. Hollis requires maintaining that the allegations posted on the website were false and were mainly published to communicate to ruin his reputation. In this way, the court will take this case seriously and punish the perpetrators. Mr. Hollis can prove that Tasha published these statements on her website and the comments were directed to the plaintiff which harmed his reputation. By using Defamation per se, Restatement (2d) of Torts, §§ 570-574, such statements are solely made to tarnish the plaintiff’s reputation and will not need the court to prove that Mr. Hollis felt harm CITATION HGl18 \l 2057 (HG.legal resources. Org, 2018). Some of the comments that fall under defamation per se would include a claim of a criminal offense, communicable diseases if it was said that the plaintiff was incompatible with business, trade and his profession and that the plaintiff has severe sexual misconduct. Also, it is undeniable that the anonymous person addressed the statement to a third party so that there are witnesses to the crime. A person cannot be defamed by a statement which was addressed to only him or her. In this case, Mr. Hollis could claim that the anonymous person who posted the claims knew that the statements were false and would defame him. Also, referring to Weaver & Partlett, (2015), the plaintiff could claim that the person acted recklessly and disregarded the truth, or was negligent and failed to ascertain whether the statements were true or not before publishing them on Ms. Joseph’s website. 2 First and foremost, before Mr. Hollis files a complaint against Tasha, he must prove that he is a reasonable person by declaring that the statement was directed to him. In this case, the anonymous person who posted those defaming remarks on the site did not specify that the claims were directly attacking him because no names were indicated. Since the name was not mentioned, then there must be identifying facts which will be very challenging in this case. Mr. Hollis cannot file a case not only against Tasha Joseph but also against the person who posted defaming information against Hollis. Many states have deadlines for filing law suits from the time it happened and these conditions are refered to statute of limitations. In this case, Mr. Holis might have missed the statutory deadline and this could be ground number one that the defendant may ask the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. In this case the statute of limitations begun running when the anonymous website user wrote the statement on Joseph’s website, therefore, the plaintiff took his time to file the case. Also, simply because the website user made defamatory statements on the site does not mean that the person will be held accountable for defamation. The person who made the defamatory statements must also act in an unacceptable manner and not just mere words. In this case, no one acted in an inappropriate manner (Chapter 4, Business and the Constitution-freedom of speech P76). To add strength to this claim, the person who posted these claims is anonymous and thus could have never acted inappropriately. According to section 230 of the communications decency Act, the crime committed is internet defamation which is an internet speech which was posted with a significant aim of ruining another person’s reputation. Even though the victim, Mr. Hollis has a right to file suit against not only the original speaker of the defamatory information, but also, the person or the platform the defamatory report was published, section 230 of the communications decency Act gives the accused immunity. According to section 230 of the communications decency Act, a person’s whose reputation has been ruined can sue even a newspaper stand and who will be held liable for a destroying someone’s reputation. In this case, however, it is challenging because the defamatory speech was sent by a person who took advantage of the anonymity offered by the internet platforms. This will be almost impossible for Mr. Hollis to file a case against the original speaker of these defaming remarks. Mr. Hollis may opt to present a case against the website that published the information created by the original speaker. However, the site to is immune to from liability because it has been protected by section 230 of the communications decency act of 1996. This act reads “No provi...