The flipside of the right to sue for defamation is the chilling effect on free speech and expression. The right to fair criticism is a vital part of free speech. A statement based on analysis of factual information cannot be categorised as defamatory. The primary defences against a defamation charge is truth or bona fide fair criticism. The question of defamation arises only when statements are false and maliciously intended. In the case of financial analysts, they are experts who are adept at analysing and identifying issues in relation to corporations.
It can even be argued that financial analysts are more adept at identifying industry specific issues, which might not be easily identified by regulators like the Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, etc.
The question therefore arises as to whether financial analysts should be granted immunity from the offence of defamation, on the grounds that it affects free speech, as well as impedes them from discharging their duties in a fair and balanced manner. It is true that corporate reputation is built over time and easily damaged, which puts a great measure of responsibility on an analyst to ensure that their sources are reliable and verified and their assessment — accurate.
It is also true that if corporations are allowed to slap defamation charges against every analyst who says anything against them or their practices, it will deter analysts from being proactive in their work. However, a blanket immunity from defamation charges will not be justified in the event a false report is ever published by a financial analyst. Therefore, every case will have to be analysed for balancing between the right to reputation and freedom of speech in the face of public interest and corporate reputation.
Eccles , Scott C. NE News [] 1 QB Holden, [—] 7 LR Eq at When a company goes too far and begins accusing its competitor of conduct which they have not participated in, then the competitor will have a valid basis to enlist a Chicago commercial defamation lawyer in bringing a lawsuit.
One problem that plaintiffs face when alleging defamation is that they must be able to prove that they suffered actual damage usually financial losses as a result of the defamation. This can be difficult to prove. Even if a company experiences a drop in stock prices, for example, following the release of a competitor's defamatory advertisement, the company would still have to provide evidence that the drop in stock prices was a direct result of the advertisement.
Another requirement for defamation is that the person or company making the defamatory statement knew or should have known that the statement was false.
If someone claims that the chief executive officer of a company was involved in a pyramid scheme and that person honestly believed that to be true, then she cannot be convicted of defamation. However, most courts will consider the source of the information and determine whether or not the person should have reasonably known that the information was false. Trade libel is similar to commercial defamation except that, instead of attacking the company or people in the company, it attacks the quality of the company's goods or services.
As with commercial defamation, companies must be careful when using the drawbacks of a competitor's goods in order to tout the benefits of their own products or services. If it can be reliably shown that it resulted in a transfer of customers to them from their competitor, the competitor may have grounds for a trade libel lawsuit.
Our commercial defamation attorneys can advise Chicago clients on whether this may be the case in their circumstances. Competing companies are not the only entities who need to be aware of trade libel lawsuits. With the dawn of the digital age, consumers have taken to the Internet to both praise and condemn the companies that they patronize. Thus, individuals and organizations ranging from small businesses to large corporations often want to know the actions they can take to protect themselves or their brand against baseless defamation.
Furthermore, in instances where a false and defamatory review may have resulted in lost sales and decreased revenue, they may want to know whether the site and the poster can be held accountable for their actions.
The Internet Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law can work to remove the false, malicious, or vindictive review. Furthermore, we may be able to work to hold the individual user, and in some cases, the site accountable. To schedule a free and confidential consultation call today. In our culture the First Amendment holds a special and elevated place. As such, many people frequently argue that the First Amendment entitles them to say anything they want, how they want, and when they want regardless of the consequences.
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Thus, the First Amendment applies principally to government restraints on speech. While initially applying to only the federal government, the amendment was later incorporated through the 14th Amendment to also apply to the states.
Thus, when people assert their First Amendment right to speak falsehoods publicly, they largely miss the point of the protections that are provided. While the individual user who actually writes and posts the defamatory story, comment, or report can always potentially be held liable for a perceived defamatory statement, the analysis is more complicated when it comes to the site or platform where the comment is posted. In many if not most cases, the defamatory statements posted online are often in the comment, review, and social platform sections of websites.
In other cases, the site itself may be populated entirely or predominately with user-generated content. While many people feel that the site itself should be liable, the simple fact is that Section of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections to sites that host materials. This safe harbor protects the sites themselves from liability and often results in a counterclaim being filed against any company or individual who is unaware of this fact.
For sites that do not host user-generated content and rely on a traditional editorial model or are simply the views of a single person on a personal website or a site founded for a certain purpose, traditional notions of defamation law hold true. However, potential litigants would be wise to consider the potential for collection of any judgement and furthermore their ability to prove damages. Often times, working directly with the site is more productive to secure a removal of the offending content before significant damage can occur.
Using a lawyer to facilitate these negotiations can put distance between the defamed party and the alleged defamer providing perspective and keeping discussions professional. Furthermore, an attorney can assess the situation in an unbiased matter to determine the next appropriate step to take to handle the defamation.
0コメント