This is a "mock" case of a "Libel Slander" assignment that I had to do for Legal Studies. Based on the United States & the Laws in Ohio this is generally called a Case Brief, or more officially refered to an Appelliate Brief. Hopfully this will help others have a better understand to the reasons why.
To: Professor Neiman
From: Suzanne M. Deeds
Date: September 27, 2007
RE: Defamation
Factual Summary
Tom Harris and Jake Carson were both involved in sports and the political arena that eventually turned into a high school rivalry. During their four years of high school Tom or Jake were president of the student body of their high school. After graduation they enrolled into Collegiate University that is located in University Town. They eventually pledged rival fraternities, Tom pledging the Alpha’s and Jake pledging the Beta’s. The Alpha’s and the Beta’s constantly pulled pranks and on occasion tried to discredit the fraternities. In their senior year, Tom and Jake decided to run for president of the student body. During the election campaign there was lots of mudslinging and rumors that Jake was gay. It was later found that the Alpha’s was the fraternity that started the false rumor.
Every year on the night before the election, the students and faculty looked forward to one of the Universities traditions of skit night. Everyone meets in the football stadium and the incumbents present a skit about their campaign. Jake presented his skit by poking fun at Tom and focused on how he would be a better candidate. Tom chose to present his skit taking place in a doctor’s office. “Tom” played the part of “Jake” and one of the Alpha’s as “Jake’s” doctor. In the skit Tom walks into the doctor’s office and states to the doctor “Now that I have completed my tests, I feel I am willing and ready to complete my duties as student body president and lead this University to great achievements. Jake (Tom) you better sit down, all your tests came back negative but one. Your HIV test came back positive. At that moment a fight broke out between the Beta’s and the Alpha’s, the police were called, and Tom Harris ended up winning the election with (2/3) vote.
Issue #1: Is it actionable per se as slander to announce that a person has tested HIV positive where the statement is not true?
Short Answer: This is an election campaign for Collegiate University student body president.
Law & Analysis:
Both college students are incumbents for a current election to elect a student body president. The legal definition for slander is the spoken word of attack upon the reputation of another. Anyone who enters into a public or political arena must be prepared to take a certain amount of mudslinging. New York Time v. Sullivan 374 U.S.820; 1963 U.S. (citations omitted). Freedom of Speech is a basic fundamental right under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. U.S. Constitution Amendment I; Ohio Constitution. art. I, 11.
Conclusion: Anyone who chooses to enter into the public arena must be prepared to take a certain amount of mudslinging. Under the First Amendment, the Freedom of Speech constitutes the right for individuals, the public, or the press to express their individualism. Even if the defamatory statements were found as slander per se, the plaintiffs must prove such allegations by distinguishing the difference between a statement of fact and the opinion of another without violating that individuals first amendment rights. The State of Ohio v. Davis 27 Ohio App.3d 65; 499 N.E. 2d 1255; 1985.
Issue #2: Although Tom claims that his statement that Jake was HIV positive was made in jest, would the word give rise to an action for slander.
Short Answer: Even though Tom’s statement was made in jest, it is likely that he can be libel for slander.
Law & Analysis:
According to the O.R.C. Ann.2739.01 in an action for libel or slander, a defamatory matter was published or spoken of a plaintiff. If the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts showing the defamatory matter was spoken of him. It is important to note that the O.R.C. 3599.091 has a state interest in preventing publication or false statements with regards to incumbents running for an election knowingly and willing to make false statements to defeat a candidate for public office. The Freedom of Speech Act does not include a right to purposely, with the knowledge of its falsity, publish a false statement about a candidate running for public office with the intent to promote the election or defeat their candidate. The State of Ohio v. Davis 27 Ohio App. 3d 65; 499 N.E. 2d 1255; 1985 Ohio.
Conclusion: Candidates have an ethical duty to follow the rules and regulations of standard campaigning practices. Purposely making false statements about the opposing party with the intent to promote the election or defeat their opposing party is in violation of the O.R.C. 3599.091. Therefore, according to the campaigning laws of the State of Ohio, the plaintiff would have to have concrete evidence that the defamatory statement was indeed slander.
Issue #3: Could Jake be considered a public official or public figure in a slander action brought by him, and, if he is considered a public official or public figure, will it make a difference in the lawsuit?
Short Answer: It will make no difference if Jake was considered a public official or public figure.
Law & Analysis:
In the law of libel and slander, a person who has assumed a role in the affairs of society such as persuasive power and influence, are considered public figures. People who are public figures/public officials have chosen to put themselves in public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Westropp v. The E.W. Scripps Co. Et Al. 76 Ohio App. 463: 59 N.E. 2d 205; 1944
Conclusion: Based on the legal definition of public figure/public official, the Freedom of Speech Act of the United States Constitution it will be difficult for Jake Carson to prove slander. However, according to the O.R.C. 3599.091, it is ethically wrong for candidates to make false statements to defeat their opposing party. Although difficult to prove, there is a strong possibility that Jake will be awarded punitive damages for the damage caused to his reputation, the loss of the election due to the malicious false statements made by Tom Harris.
Please note that the proper legal formating of Cases and Sub Titles should be underlined and the Issues should be bold faced and underlinded. Not sure how do to do this on this site.
